Cad = 


ee 
5 ee ene 
T Pacey er tee 


= : Serer 


oo 
ak teed 


wee 
oe geet ens 


ao ee fy TT 
ees So olan’ a2: 


oo. . 
— po ke * ‘. “ 
er oo cs ¥ 
= oe. =o z * > Nee ee 
bon, ath 5, + d : “7 ee A ee 


- 
re ana 
Pye es re 
PLN wales ee 


DUKE 
UNIVERSITY 


DIVINITY SCHOOL 
LIBRARY 


* 
2 


; a oe 
EPISCOPACY EXAMINED: OR, THE EVIDENT “OFFICIAL 
PARITY OF ALL THE AMBASSADORS OF CHRIST: 


. 


a 


SERMON, 


DELIVERED 


IN HOPKINTON, NEW-HAMPSHIRE, 


Lords Mary, ~ 


7 Dec. 225 1816. 


—_—o— 


BY ETHAN SMITH, 
Minister of Hopkinton. 


——a 


One is your Master, even Christ ; and all ye are brethren.”.... IMMANUEL. 


- 
Pe 


Published at the Request of the Hearers, anid others. 
Zz 


> 
rvs 


CONCORD: 
PRINTED BY GEORGE HOUGH. 
Fes.....1817, 


7" 


«egies hie : 


5 Viphr 


- > 
5 


ea ce” ES 


g 
¥ 
jp 

2 


_ Sermon, 


MATTHEW XXVIII. 18, 19, 20... 


And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me ‘in 
heaven and in earth. Go ye, therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them 
in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost; teaching 
them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and lo, I am 
with you alivay, even unto the end of the world» Amen. © é 


WE have here, presented by the great Head of the church, 
the commission of the Gospel ministry. Here is the grand Chart 
of that holy institution under the Gospel, which God has estab- 
lished as the means of the salvation of his people. “ For after, 
that in the wisdom of God, the world by wisdom knew not God, 
it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that | 
delieve.” ‘*So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by . 
the word of God.” —It must then, be of great importance to man 
to form correct views of this sacred commission. Errors in re- 
lation to it, must be very detrimental to the cause of Christ. 
_ When the validity of Gongregational order, or Presbyterian 
ordination, is denied, and all the ministers of this order are at- 
tacked, and treated as uncommissioned, and as having essential- 
ly deviated from Gospel rule ; it becomes such ministers either 
to admit the charge as just, and immediately to return to the 
true order of Christ ; or, (if satisfied that they are in the right 

ay) to evince from the word of God the correctness of their 
own standing ; and to Vindicate themselves and their people from 
the high charge of schism and imposition. 


/ 

_ The Congregationalists, or Presbyterians, (whom irf this 
Discourse I shall consider as one and the same) are thus attacked. 
The attack isextensive. The people of God in this place do not 
escape. I hence feel it to be my indispensable duty to attend to 
this subject--to lead my people “to the law and to the testimo- 
ny,” that they may form correct decisions upon so material a 
point. If the watchman see evil coming, and sound not the 
trumpet, he must be answerable for evil consequences at his 
peril. 


The Congregational ministers in this country, are not znter- 
lopers in this pattof the vineyard. They never crowded them- 
selves upon other orders of Christians, established here before 
them. hey have been in peaceable possession of the branch of 
the kingdom of Christ, planted in this region, from its origin. 


540065 


4 


It was established, and has grown up, un 
hand, till it has become a notable branchof t 
where the King of Zion has long done wond: 


porters °) 

The firstGospel ministers,in this western world, were Congre- | 
gational. They, with their people, fled from the oppression of 
the Episcopal church in the old lands. They were driven to this | 
new and disiaot region, a world of savage beasts and men, 
that they might here enjoy liberty of conscience, im the purity of - 
Gospel ordinances. It they be here f¢llowed, and their senti- 
ments as dissenters attacked, it by comes them to vindicate them- 
selves by the word of Gud. Aad to this task, they feel them-— 
selyes abundantly competent. i 
't 

When aman has been found qualified for t . Gospel afitain. | | 
try—has been regularly introduzed—has been called by a 
destitute church and people to’ take the charge of them in the 
Lerd—has consented, to devote his life to this holy service=—_ 
has been solemnly set over them, and by the Holy. Ghost made 
their overseer—has been faithful and successful i in his ministry, 
and is preaching nothing but the plain doctrines of the Gospel, 
tke doctrines of the Reformation, which God has always owned 
and blessed ; has such un one a right to expect to be invaded by 
other ministers of Christ ? or by any other people duly influ-” 
enced by evangelical principles? One would think thatevery 
princ’ple of the Gospel and of benevolence forbids all such 
innovating attempts ; and that, when such attempts are made, 
the r-ply of the Master, relative to the sowimg of the tares, 
becomes applicable, “ An enemy hath done this”® ; 


f * 


Some of the leading Episcopal sentiments, urged in opposition 
to Congregational or Preshyterian ministration, are these :— 
That the Gospel ministry, from the days of the apostles, consists 
of three orders, Bishops, Priests, and preaching Deacons : “Hy 
That the right of ordination, and of confirmation, and the 
supreme power of the keys, is vested exclusively in Bishops, a 
superior order of Gospel ministers : That the Bishop is invest~- 
ed with a supreme power over his diocese, consisting of a 
number of individual churches, of subordinate priests, deacons, 
and laity : Aad that his authority in the church is so extensive, 
that nothing Ecclesiastical is to be doney but by power derived 
from him. Pig?" 

It is said, in the preface to the “ form and manner of making, 
ordaining, and consecrating Bishops, Priests, and Deacons,” 
that “it is evident unto ali men, diligently reading the holy 
Scriptures, and ancient authors, | that from. the apostles’ time 
there have been three orders e ministers in ol church, 


5 


_ Bishops, Priests, and Deacons.” The Bishops are, by Epis- 
| copalians, viewed as the exclusive successors of the apostles, 
| occupying a rank, as they suppose the apostles did, officially 
- superior to the two. other orders of Gospel minisiers. And all 
ordinations, not performed by the Bishop, are, in the view of 
Episcopalians, nud/ and void. 


- 


But Cangregationalists do solemnly declare, that, having 
‘searched the Scriptures, such Episcepal sentiments are not to 
them evident ; but they think they find ample evidence to the 
contrary. Of this you will judge for yourselves, after attending 
to a coneise statement of their views in the following Discourse. 

Your candid, devout, and patient attention is requested to 
this subject. We wish, when attacked, to be thus heard in our, 
cause. It being the cause of truth, ‘which we plead, (as we 
believe) and a cause of vast practical importance, justice and 
benevolence demand such attention. Some readily imbibe 
Episcepab peculiarities, who yet, under pretence that they will 
not dispute, refuse to weigh the arguments on our side of the 
question. Surely our sentiments ought tobe examined; and 
not be condemned unheard. 


In. discussing the subject proposed, I shall remark, 


I. Upon the commission in the text, given by Christ to his 
ministers. 


Il. Upon the origin of Episcopacy. 


HL Upon some things in the Episcopal system, which I can- 
not approve. 


f. I shall remark upon the commission in the text, given oy 
Christ to his Gospel ministers. 


= 


Under this head, I shall make seven inquiries. 


1. To whom was this commission primarily given ? 
2. What is the dusiness assigned in this commission ? 
3. How long was this divine order to continue ? 
4. Can this commission institute, or admit of, dzferent grades 
of office held: by men acting under it? 
5. Is the idea admissible, that this commission was, in after 
days, by the great Head of the church, varied ? 
6. Does. the New Testament furnish evidence, that the 
_ succession of Gospel ministers was. ta consist. of men holding 
| diferent grades of office ?: 


5 Ee a ee 


Pi. ee eae 


6 
7. By whom were ordinations in tne anette age per- 
formed ? eS ats HP 
sa eet + Ay 


1. To whom was this commission primase" given 2. ‘It was 
given to the eleven apostles ; and to no others. "Thus Matthew, 


in our context, informs : ** Then the eleven disciples went away 


isto Galilee, into a mountain, where Jesus had appointed them. 
And when they saw him, they worshipped him; but some 
doubted. Then Jesus came and spake upto them, 4 the eleven 
apostles.) saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in 
earth. Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them 


in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holly : 


Ghost; teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have 
commanded you. And lo, Iam with you alway, even unto the 


end of the world. Amen.” Here we learn that the commis- 


sion was expressly given to the eleven; and to none beside. 
We again read, “* Alterward he (Christ) appeared unto the 
eleven, as they sat at meat, and upbraided them with their un- 


belief. And he said unto then, Go ye into all the world, and. 


preach the Gospel to every creature; he that believeth, and is 


baptized, shall be saved ; and he that believeth not, shall be. 


damned.” Here was an anticipation | of the same commission, 
given to the cleven apostics. Luke, in the beginning of his 
Gospel, decides that this commission was given to the eleven 
_. disciples, and to them only. ‘ The former treatise have I made, 

O Theophilus, of all that Jesus began both to do and to. teach, 
until the day that he was taken up, after that he, through. the 
Holy Ghost, had given commandment unto the apostles, whom 
he had chosen.” ‘This commandment given, was evidently the 
commandment in our text. And it was given to the “ apostles, 
whom Christ had chosen.” Aod the phrase implies, ‘it 
ws given to no other. The subsequent very formal and solemn 
appointment of Matthias, to take the part in the apostleship,. 
from which Judas fell, confirms the same sentiment, that the 
commission had been given only to the eleven apostles. God 
now appointed Matthias to be numbered with them, under the 
commission in our text, that their number twciiia mnight fers 
completed. 


Other persons, in after days, oficiated under this commission, 
after they were ordained thus to do by the apostles, or by men 
in the sacred office, as will be shewn. But not the least inti- 
mation is ever given, that any were primarily commissioned by. 
Christ, under the command in our text, but the eleven apostles. 
And in various passages, as we have seen, the commission was 
restricted to them. The twelve stars on the head of the woman, 
(the church) Rev. xii. 1. decide that the Gospel ministry com- 
menced exclusively in the twelve apostles. Here then, we. 


; » | 
find but one order of Gospel ministers, when Christ (in the full 
‘exercise of all power in heaven and earth) first instituted the 
Gospel ministry, and immediately ascended to glory. Surely 
it cannot be from this fact, that the Episcopalians assure us, 
‘that it is evident unto all men—there are three orders of minis- 
ters in Christ’s church, bishops, priests, and deacons,” mean- 
ing preaching deacons. Wad the great Head of the church de- 
signed this should be the case, why did he not institute them ? 
Why did he not give some intimation of them, when he com- 
missicned his ambassadcrs ? Or why did he not so form their 
commission as to have implied, or at least to have admitted, 
these different cfficial orders? Instead of this, Christ commis- 
sioned his first ambassadors with powers perfectly co-ordinate, 
or with a perfect equality of official powers. Their commission 
was cneand the same. Accordingly Christ had said unto them, 
* Be ye not called Rabbi ; for one is your Master, even Christ; 
and all ye are brethren.” It hence fully appears, that our Lord 
designed that all his Gospel ministers should, as to their com- 
mission and office, be on a perfect level under Him, their one 
and only High Priest in heaven. May we not safely look to 
this first institution of the Gospel ministry, to learn the order 
which we may safely follow? Whocan exhibit a better source 
of information? 


The Episcopal argument then, that the twelve apostles were . 
first commissioned as a superior grade in the Gospel ministry, 
(as predecessors to modern diocesan bisheps )and that the seventy 
were commissioned to act as curates in suberdination to them, 
is utterly without foundation. We read not a word of these 
seventy in the Acts ef the Apostles: and we are not furnished 
with the least evidence of these seventy’s being employed in the 
Gospel ministry, after the resurrection of Christ. They never 
before iad received any thing more than a temporary mission, 
to make some short excursions in some cities in Isracl, whither 
their Lord was to come. Having done this, we have no further 
account of them, as ministers of Christ.—It is certain, as has 
been made to appear, that they were not included among those 
whom the risen Savior commissioned as the heralds of his salva- 
tion. 


2. What is the dusiness assigned, in this first commission ? 
** Go ye, and teach all nations ; baptizing them in the name of 
the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost ; teaching ~ 
them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you.” 
Preaching had before been confined to tke Jews, “ the lost sheep 
of the house of Israel.” The atcnement was never before ac- 
tually made ; the everlasting righteousness was never before 
brought in. Hence all preaching before was cnly preparatcry. 


8 


John, Christ himself, and his disciples in his day, testified that 
“the kingdom of heaven was at hand.” Seventy disciples had 
been sent out to the various cities in Israe/, where Chris’ 
‘come, to preparé the way before his’ face. They hath only ie 
short, subordinate, preparatory mission, But such disciples now, 
when Christ triumphantly ascended his Mediatorial Throue, 
were laid aside, as to being his special ambassadors, ecommis- 
sioned by the risen Savior ; while the apostles were commission= 
ed to “* go into all the world, and preach the Gospel to every 
creature.” The way wasnow, for the first time, prepared for 
the introduction of the Gospel dispensation. The middle wall 
of partition, between Jews and Gentiles, was now to ‘be taken 
down. Hence the commission was given to the 
whom Matthias was added, and Paul not long a , by thie. 
special call of Christ) to go and teach all nations, ‘and perform 
the duties assigned in our text. na 
3) acls Fo 
The word in the text rendered “ teach,” signifies mthe orig- 
inal, “ disciple,” or make disciples of. The he aig the apostles 
expressed in the text, are, disciple, baptize, and teache Awd 
this has been the common business of all the ambassadors of 
Christ, from that day to this. These'duties (expressed ia the 
commission) zmply all other duties, essential to the performance 
of them, and to the perpetuity of the Gospel ministry. The 
formation of churches then, the administering) of the Lord’s 
Supper, the erdaining of ministers as the coadjators and stuc- 
cessors of the apostles, and directing in the order and discipline 
of the church ; these were implied in the apostolie rors <M 
For the commission could not be carried into effect withou 
Hence the apostles understood these as being implied’; and they 
performed them without hesitation. But the persons first’ com 
missioned performed, with egual authority, all the duties!con- 
tained in their cummission. Noone of them did or could assume 
any official character superior to that of another. Under equal 
autherity they all strove to carry the object of their commission 
intoeffect. The official duties performed by one, were per- 
formed by every one. And the duties enjoined inthe text are 
precisely such, as the elders, ordained by the apostles, did per+ 
form ; and as all pastors of churches have been ordained to per 
form, from that day tothe present. This fact is evident on the 
very face of the commission. Surely it cannot be from this, 
that Episcopalians inform us, “it isevident unto’ all men, that 
there have been three orders in the Gospel ministry, feoui the 
days of the apostles.” eee 
walse FY 
3. How long was the commission in our text to continue? 
It was to'continue to “ the end of the world.” “ Lo, Dam with 
you alway, even unto’ the end of the world.” The oT 


9 


tion of the covenant of grace was introduced ; and the last order 

' of the teachers of grace instituted. With this order of men, 
Christ would afford his presence, till he shall appear in the 

cloudsof heaven. Butcould the men first commissioned con- 

tinue to execute the order, till the end of the world? Byno 

means. It was to be true of them, as was said of the Levitical 

priesthood, “ They were not suffered to continue by reason of 

death.”? 


Here then, is fully implied the succession of the ministry that 
was instituted in the apostles. Here is implied the authority of 
~ the apustles to ordain successors. And here is fully implied the 
official equality and even the official identity of the successors of 
the apostles with the apostles themselves, For if the successors 
of the apostles were not to be officially egua/, and the same, with 
the apostles ; then the promise of Christ, “‘ bo, I am with you 
alway,even unto the end of the world,” fai's of be’ng accomplish- 
ed. In order to a fulfilment of this promise, the persons inclad- 
ed in the pronoun “ you,” in the text, must remain officially the 
same, tothe end of the world. They cannot belong to a grade 
of office superior, nor inferior, to those to whom the promise 
was made. For then they could not belong to the class in the 
pronoun “ you,” to whom the promise was made. E 

There were indeed to be circumstantial differences between 
the apostles, and their coadjutors, and successorsin office, whom 
they shouldordain. They were to be found possessed of dif- 
ferent kinds and degrees of gifts aad qual)fications for their 
work. But these differences were not to originate in any dif- 
ferent commissions ; but from the mercy of God; or the promised 
presence of Christ, giving them strength to fu'fil their commis- 
sion, giving them strength according to their day. 


The apostles among themselves had their different gifts, and 
their different degrees of usefulness. But these constituted no 
official grades of difference ; neither between the d fferent apuos-* 
tles, nor between the apostles and their coadjutors and succes- 
sors, whom they ordained. All officiated under one and the 
same commission. And this commission, and the promise, 
“ Lo, I am with you alway,” fully: shew, that the apostles, 
and all the true ministers of Christ, to the end of the world, 
are officially one andthe same. This deduction is unavoidable. 
Hence it is impossible to admit, that the ambassadors of Christ 
were divided into different grades of office. If present elders 
‘and pastors of-churches can claim the promise of Christ, “ Lo, 
‘Tam with you alway,” it must be only by finding that they do 
belong to the very order of men, who first received this promise 

B 


r 


Ys erode? 
10 pehinn: WeShte 


of the presence of Christ. If they belong not to this order, the 
promise is notapplicable to them. We teas Sa rs veliger 
‘ ; j a, | a 
4. Can the commissicn in our text institute, or ad: of, 
different grades of office, held by men acting under it? C ould 
the apostles find a warrant in this commission to ordain coadju- 
tors and successors, to hold, under this commission, different 
grades of office from what they held? Is it possible for the 
same commission to constitute one man a bishop, another a sub- 
ordinate priest, and another still a preaching deacon, as Epis- 
copalians insist? Doctor Bowden, (a great advocate for Epis-- 
ecpacy ) says, “ The church of Christ cannot exist without tz Ay 
(meaning these different orders of ministers.) “ Moerthe tae : 
to us) ascribe to your Presbytery (common minister +f 1e 
whole authority implied in the apostolic commission ; ( aning 
that in our text:) gre ascribe but a part of itto the Presbytery ; 
and the whole ef it to the bishops. This is the Jugulum Cause, | 
(the point on which the controversy turns.) When this shall. 
be once settled, the dispute must come to an end.” Let this 
point then, on which the controversy is acknowledged to turn, 
be examined. The same commission, in the text, has what 
they call a “* division of powers.” It constitutes one, to whom 
it is given, a bishop: it constitutes another a priest: and it 
constitutes a third a preaching deacon. But how can such “ di-— 
vision of powers” be found or admitted in the text? Can one 
commission, in the same words, institute different grades of 
office in different men? It speaks the same words to each. Why 


then does it not mean to each the same things @ ' Here is a 


commission sent from the Governor of the State to three men, 
precisely in the same words, constituting each a captain Over a 
company of soldiers. One of them says, I can perceive in this 
commission a “ division of powers.” Though the words to 
each of us are exactly the same, yet I can perceive they consti- | 
tute mea captain, they constitute you my Heutenant, and they 
constitute the third man my orderly sergeant! What would 
you think of the discernment of this captain? ‘Would -you, at_ 
his direction, consent to act in one of these subordinate grades 
under him, while yet you hold the same commission, in the 
same words with himself? Is it possible for the same commis-_ 
sion, in the same words, to constitute one man a supreme 
magistrate, another a subordinate magistrate, and a third man 
a sheriff? For what purpose is language or writing given, if 
this be the case? If such liberties may be taken with our text, 
why not with any other text in the Bible ? And thus make the 
same words from the mouth of God, convey one meaning to 
ene man, another meaning to another, and a third meaning 
to athird! 


il 


Where did the apostles, or how could they, ordain different 
orders of ministers under such a supposed “ division of powers’ 
in theircommission? Could they have done it, without being 

desired to assign some reason for such a practice?) Here (an 
inferior priest might say) you ordain me a minister af Christ, to 

. Offictate under the same commission with yourselves. Here then, 
is my commission t2 go forth and preach the Gospel. But the same 

words, you inform, convey to me enly a part of the authority, 
which they convey to you, and some others. I an not disposed 
to dispute your authori, (the subordinate priest might add,) I 
wish only for explanation, so that I may understand this point, 
and be able to explain it te others.—Now, it seems as though some 
such case as this, from some inquisitive minds, must have oc- 
curred. And the apostles must have found it convenient, if 
not necessary, to have given some explanation of it, if they 
had thus ordained. But not.a word of any thing of the kind do 
we find, in the days of the apostles, Let the impartial ‘then, 
judge whether such a“ division of powers’ can be contained in 
our text. Should it appear'cecided that it cannot be there con- 
tained ; then, by the concession of Mr. Bowden, the dispute is 
terminated in our favor.—lI proceed to inquire, 


5. Is the idea admissible, that the commission in our text 
was, im after days, by the great Head of the church, varied ? 
Some Episcopalians, finding the great difficulty of supporting 
such a “ division of powers,” as contained in the same com- 
mission ; and yet being quite unprepared to yield up the point 
in dispute ; have advocated the following hypothesis :—That it 
was found, just at the close of the apostolic age, that a perma- 
nent superior order, in the Gospel ministry, was necessary ; 
and that hence the apostles, just before they went off the stage, 
were inspired to institute this new order. This position is 
strongly advocated by many Episcopalians. But the question 
occurs, Who knows that this was the case ? » Not the least hint 
of it is found in the word of God ; as will be shewn inthe next 
section. , 


Such a supposition makes Christ a mutable, imperfect Being. 
He had instituted the Gospel ministry,under the express commis-= 
sion of ‘all power in heaven and earth ;”’ and under most solemn 
circumstances. He, who isthe “ Amen, the faithful and true 
Witness,” who is the same yesterday, to-day, and forever, had 
with such solemnity established the order of the Gospel ministry, 
promised his presence with it alway, evento the end of the 
world, added his solemn Amen, So let it be ; and immediately 
ascended to glory. But this system was afterward found on 
experiment to be so imperfect, that new expedients must be de- 
vised and adopted, And tne apostles, in their old age, must 


12 


be inspired to institute and establish this remedys Aindyattend-» 
ing to this view of the subject,an Episcopalian divine (Professop » 
Whitaker). acknowledges, that “the remedy is almost worse. 
than the disease.” We would not unite with Mr, Whitaker i in) 
this, provided we could fiad evidence that such a remedy was in- 
deed found necessary, and was divinely introduced. But finding | 
not a hint of any such evidene in the sacred Oracles, we deem — 
the suppesition inadm'ssible. We eannot admit that shearer: 
of the worid is so imperfect and mutablea Being} 
te AQ Gh) ey 
Had the apostles been inspired to introduce such an order in | 
the Gospel ministry, it must have been left on sacred record, — 
for the direction of the ambassadors of Christ: otherwise, ‘they 
must have been greatly exposed to err. | Fora commission once © 
givenby Christ, must be esteenred as in full furce, till itis: 
abolished with equal authority and evidence, with those, under » 
which it was given, Butno evidence exists, in the | ord of © 
God, that the commission in our text was ever rf wea 
varie 1 antege ane wiz a obeeasteney 
a porndy a “whl y iquiades 
Should we therefore be actually convinced, from» healer 
human records, that the apostles did, in their Test: days, intro- | 
duce such an innovation, while yet no account is furnished, in» 
the sacred records, of their authority from God, thus to do; we» 
should be unable to view it in any other light, thamas an act of © 
their superannuation ; and no more to be imitated by us, than 
was the deed of Solomon, in his old age, cf building high places 
to.other gods! But such an aspersien upon the character of | 
the apostles is by no means to be admitted. Andthe belief, that” 
the commission in our text was, in after days, to be Piven 
can by no means obtain. Christ is not divided, nor mutable, 
He has never left in his kingdom contradictory directions. » He» 
would never invalidate a com nission given like that in our texte | 
The idea, that Christ would inspire his apostles, in their last — 
days, to effect such a change in the Gospel ministry, to ordain 
a superior order to act as bishops, ia the modern sense of the 
word ; and that the knowledge of allthis was to be transmitted » 
to succeeding generations by human tradition or history ; and — 
yet the history of this event should be so chacune ee tantane 
bea fact ; is anaes incredible." » od FRR: GRO He Be 
rie at te md it + 
Episcopalians are very fond of believiag, ‘an diasleatletiney leat 
the peculiarities of their scheme: find much pencernerrorirriciud 
New Testament. Let us then candidly examime—= 
Littpandes too wattouns 
6. Does the: New Testament Sernisk evidence that the-suc- 
cession of Gospel ministers was to consist of mem holding’ 
different grades of office ? If it were to be thus, the fagtemust 


13. 


be ascertained in the New Testament. It is worse than in 
vain, itis impious, to pretend we must believe the affirmative, 
while yct itis not clearly ascertained in the New Testament. 
Let this point then be brought to the test. 

‘But here some may inquire, Do we not readin the New 
Testament, of apostles, prophets, pastors, teachers, evangelists, 
elders, overseers, bishops? Are not here different orders of 
Gospel ministérs?: Answer—These refer not to different . 
grades of office in the commission ; but to different gifts and 
circumstances of men in the same grade of office. Should they 
be viewed as relating to the former, it would prove too: much, 
even for Episcopalians. It would prove not merely three 
official grades, for which they contend; but it would prove 
many. But while Christ (when he ascended on high, and led 
‘Captivity captive) gave gifts to men—“ apostles, prophets, evan- 
gelists, pastors, and teachers”—-it was ‘“‘ for the work of the 
minisiry’’— the one work, performed under ene and the same 
commission ; conferring on all, in the same words, co-ordinate 
authority. But Christ, in the promise of his presence with this , 
| one official order of his ministers, engages to furnish them with 
gifts, graces, and aids, according to their day ; and according 
to the wants of those, to whom they minister. ‘ My grace is. 
sufficient for thee ; my strength is made perfect in weakness.” 
. * As thy day is, so shall thy strength be.” ~ 


Hence, as the apostles were first to go forth and beat the way 
through a persecuting pagan world, and while the canon of 
Scripture was not yet filled, Christ endued them with miracu- 
lous powers ; gifts of healing, and of tongues, and supernatural 
authority. ‘These miraculous aids to the first ministers con- 
tinued so long as they were necessary ; not to constitute the _ 
apostles a superior official order ; but to furnish them for the, 
‘special work of their day. But their zét/e, (apostles) and their 
miraculous gifts, did not result from any. superiority in their 
commission. The term apostles resulted from the peculiarity 
of their case—being jirst commissioned and sent out by Christ 
himself. And their miraculous. gifts resulted frum the peculiar 

_ grace of God, to enable them to fulfil their commission. But 
these no more gave the apostles an official pre-eminence over 
other Gospel ministers, than the special gifts and superior use- 

_ fulness of Paul, compared with some others of the apostles, 

prove that he possessed an official -pre-eminence over them. | 

_ Paul did not derive his special gifts and usefulness from any su- 

_ periority of commission ; but from the promise of Christ to his 

ministers, to give them strength according to their day. From 

_ this promise, ministers, in all ages, have derived different de-- 

_ grees of gifts and of usefulness ; but not different grades of office. 


F 14 Bei 


The apostles derived what of infallibility and of superior author- 
ity they possessed, immediately from God himself, to = 
them for their special work ; and not from any superiorit 
commission. For their commission (which was to pti 
the end of the world) was but one and the same to the ocrel 
and to all the ambassadors of Christ. But the ‘miraculous 
powers of the apostles gave them an authority and’ ‘influence, 
which none of their successors have possessed. 


We are furnished with various catalogues of mini ct I gifts. 
To the Corinthians, Paul says, “ For all things re yours ; 
whether Paul, or Apollos, or Cephas, or the world.” ‘These, 
names allude to the different gifts of these ministers” of Christ. 
Again, “ God hath set some in the church, first apostles, 
secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then 
gifts of healing, helps, governments, diversities of tongues.’ 
There are eight distinctions noted among the ministers of Christ, 
in the first Christian age. Will any pretend they denote iano 
official grades of Gospel ministers ? Here we find the trath of 
what has just been observed, that the title of the apostles them- 
selves is ranked only among the different ministerial gifts. The 
title apostles, no more marks a distinct official order in the Gos- 
pel ministry, than do the titles “‘ prophets, evangelists, pasters, 
and teachers,” mark distinct official orders. We read, “ And 
he gave to some apostles, and to some prophess, and to some 
evangelists, and to some pastors and teachers.” The sense is 
by Paul ascertained ; “© There are diversities of gifts, ‘but the 
same Spirit.” And ‘all his writings shew that these diversities 
of gifts were held by men, who were in the same ne eee £ at 

under one and the same commission. + Pe - 
vf y er 

In the four beasts (living creatures) in the Revelation, a 
are but symbols of the Gospel ministry, four distinct classes 

* of ministerial gifts are noted. The first was like a dion ; strong, 
bold: the second was like a calf; (an ox) patient, profitable ; 
the third had the face of a man ; peculiarly rational, affzctionate : 
and the fourth was like a fying eagle ; swift of flight, of pierc- 
ing vision, and soaring toward heaven. These cannot mark 
four official grades of ministers. They denote only the different 
talents possessed by men under the same commission, in the 
same eee of office. 

We find not the least intimation in the word of God, that the 
apostles ordained different orders of ministers. They ‘ordained 
elders in every church. These elders are occasionally called by 
different names. They were known as elders, (presbyters) and 
overseers, (in the original, bishops.) The term e/der alludes to 
the dignity of their office ; andthe term overseer (bishop) to its 


ee | 15 


active service. If one of these terms were greater than the other, 
we should say, the term elder, which alludes to the dignity of 
e office, is the greatest. _ But one of these was never designed 
to be greater thanthe other. For they were, by the Holy Ghost, 
applied promiscuously to the same persons. And in no place 
in the Bible are they used, as in modern Episcopacy, to denote 
mprent grades of office. Let this now be ascertained. 


Tn Acts xx. 17. Paul at Miletus called to him the elders of 
% church of Ephesus, and had with them his last interview. 
Among other things, he charged them to “ take heed to them- 
selves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost had 
made them overseers ;” in the original it is, dishops. These 
elders then, were by the Holy Ghost made Jdishops, as well as 
elders, over their own flocks. And in this last solemn interview 
etween Paul and all the ministers of ‘Ephesus, in which he en- 
joined on them their official duties, not ahint do we find given 
“any bishops of superior order among them. No; notwith- 
standing all that is said, in modern times, of Timothy’s having 
en constituted a diocesan bishop over these elders of Ephesus, 
not a word is now said, in so solemn a valediction, to dishop 

imothy ; or concerning any relative duties between these elders, 
and any bishop over them. All whom Paul addressed, were 
elders ; all were bishops :, and each one was to be a good bishop 
ag ole own flock. 


“Timothy (as Paul’s companion and helper) had been induced, 
it some period when Paul left Ephesus, to abide there for a 
season, ‘‘ to charge some that they teach no other doctrine ;” 
ind to aid in the establishment of Christianity in that important 
'egion. But Timothy was soon away again from that region, 
travelling and preaching in other places ; at Macedonia, Corinth, 
jerusalem, and last of all at Rome: for Paul had directed ima 
jo “‘ dothe work of an evangelist ;? which is a very different 
york from that of a modern diocesan bishop. Timothy had 
jiever been constituted such a bishop at Ephesus. Had he beea 
hus constituted, some notice must have been taken, in that last 
» gaia of Paul with the elders of Ephesus, of Timothy, his 
}} own son in the faith.” But not a hint is there given of Tim- 
phy, ner of such an cflice.. No; the ambassadors of Christ 
ere were all ona devel ; all elders ; all bishops. The celebrated 
xpositor, Dr. Whitby, (though an Episcopalian) concedes the 
yo int in these words : “Chere is no satisfactory. evidence of 
J imothy’ s having resided longer at Ephesus, than was necessary 
i pmerote a special and temporary mission to the church in that 
lace.” ‘The celebrated Scott says, ‘* There is no proof thas 
} imothy ever statedly resided there.” 


16 : 


All the Episcopal arguments then, from the supposed estat 
lishment of Timothy, 2s ruling bishop at Ephesus, are withot 
foundation! These argumeuts will answer a considerable put 
pose to decvy uninformed and incautious people. But they at 
deceptive and vain. Bad cebeida lt 


7 4 , 
1 - mits = 


“Tea T te 


In Phil. i. 1. we learn, that no officers were known in th 
church there, but bishops and deacons. ** Paul and Timotheu: 
the servangs of Christ, to all the saints in Jesus Christ that ar 
at Philippi, with the dishops and deacons.” ‘These bishops wet 
the same in office with the elders of Ephesus, just noted. An 
no grade of church officers was known at Philippi, betwee 
bishops and deacons. A deacon in those days was not appoim 
ed to preach, as in modern Episcopacy. He was appointed t 
manage church temporalities ; so that the ministers of th 
word might not be called to “ /eave the word of God, to-sert 
tables.” See Acts vi. 1--6. And no grade of church cfficet 
intervened between them and bishops, im the apostolic ag 
And these bishops were their elders, their pastors. 

Be eae ental 

This sentiment is confirmed in 1 Pet. v. 1. The eldet 
which are among you I exhort, who am also an elder,—feed th 
flock of God which is among you, taking the oversight thereof. 
In the original it is, “ beiag bishops thereof ;” or acting th 
part of bishops. Here Peter was an elder. The testimony i 
left on sacred record, that Peter was officially of the same ran 
with the elders, whom’ he ordained. This coneession of Pete 
was not a vain compliment of one in higher office, rankin 
himself, for once, with those in a*lower grade of office. No 
it was inspired, and !eft on sacred record for our rule of fait 
and practice. Peter, in office, was not superior to an elde: 
Hence the other apostles were not, iz commission, superior t 
the elders whom they ordained. 


, 


tgwed 


But Peter exhorts his brother-elders to be faithful bishop 
over their people. Certainly then, the office of modern diocesa 
bishops was not known in the days of Peters © 4 

; bude ye? : 4 

. The same things appear in the Epistles to Timothy and Titu: 
Timothy remained at Ephesus, for a season, (only as a ir: 
among equals in office) to superintend the organization ¢ 
churches there. For this’ reason, (and to afford all other mit 
isters, to the‘ end of the world, instruction relative to the! 
successors) Paul ascertains the character of the candidates fc 
the Gospel ministry. He says, “I: is a true saying, If a 
man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work. | 
bishop then must be blameless—Likewise must the deacons t 
grave.” Here, as in Paul’s valediction to the elders of Eph 


wt 

Sus, these elders are called bishops. And deacons are noted as 
next to them in office, and the only church officer beside them. 
Hence Timothy could have had no &lea of a diocesan bishop in 
that place, to rule over theelders: No; such an office was 
never hinted to him, nor by him. No directions were given 
relative to the qualifications of sucha ruler; while those of 
elders, and deacons, were described. 
Oe pe RAT sty aty> if 
» The same thing is found in Paul’s Epistle to Titus. Titus 
was left for a season at Crete, as Timothy had been at Ephesus, 
to ** set in order the things that are wanting, and to ordain elders 
in every city.” Here we note, that not a word is said of his 
ordaining one or more there, to superintend those elders, or to 
be his successor in a superion office. Had this been the will of 
God, and the true order of his kingdom, such a direction must 
surely have been given. Nota hint of such a thing, however, 
is found. But he was to see to it, that e/ders were ordained. 
And he was taught, at the same time, that these elers were 
bishops. This is ascértained in the directions given relative to 
the qualifications of the elders to be ordained. , Paul calls them 
elders ; and then adds, “ If any be blameless, the husband of 
oné wife, having faithful children, not accused of riot, or unruly. 

or a bishop must be blameless, as the steward of God.” Here 
S the reason assigned, why the elders must be of the good 
sharacter just ‘described ; ‘for a bishop must be blameless.” 
30 natural was it fur Paul to speak of the one and only order of 
zospel ministers, as both e/ders and bishops. And so abundantly 
e we assured by the Holy Ghost, that in the apostolic age, an 
ipostle, an elder, a bishop, an evangelist, and whatever other 
itles were given to the ambassadors of Christ, all these titles 
elonged to ministers in ove and the same grade of office, under 
he commission in our text. ‘One is your Master, even 
Phrist ; and all ye are brethren.” 


' Nor can the direction of the epistles of Christ to the seven 
isiatic churches, in the Revelation, being ‘ to the angel” of 
ach church, control this ample evidence ; nor prove that those 
aurches had bishops of an order superior to.elders. It was a 
stom in those times for each church to have a plurality of 
stors. - And Episcopalians labor to prove, from the direction 
hose seven epistles to the angel of each church, or city, that 
ich city had its digcesan bishop, to govern thuse elders and 
nurches. But this argument is ineffectual to prove their point. 
the language of the Revelation is highly figurative. The 
nistry, though in the hands of a plurality of pastors in each 
murch, might be denoted by the phrase, ‘‘ the angel” of that 
arch. Or, (what is. more prohets) in every church, even 


18 


Cy gk ley rads eating © 
among a plurality of elders, or pastors, ane was senior Wa 
a standing moderator. And what could bem 
for an epistle to each church to be di 
was said to him, as pastor, would Lani - appl league 
pastors. sd sits aie ac vo scshaghaabyeiyal 

' ho 7. todo rguber seorknted 

The symbol of the “ star,” or candle, in each of those seven 
golden candlesticks, is likewise ip the singular number. But 
will Episcopalians, or any others, doubt, but thi star, or light, 
in the candlestick, included all the teaching elders, pepsin 
in each church? This Episcopalian ipitinn then, decides 


nothing in their favor. meio le Agaonibael 
st dh ome tig Fi Rey to, but for- 
Thus the New Testament gives no cou 
bids the sentiment, that the succession of. 
was to consist of men in different grades of eon need et 
e hh lla Pavey hie 
This will further appear, when we inquire, es maa tes a 
1 Po ahiouny somes 
By..whom were ordinations, in the ig lene 
formed? ? A decision of this question must aord. $9 


evidence upon our subject. For it must infallibly rh 
God would have his ministers believe and practise, relz ive 
ordinations. Be Din aaeds id 


zed weet vient 
Episcopalians insist, that all the power of ordi is veste 


in their bishops. Each bishop may ordain ; but sy (com 
mon pastors of churches) have no such power. ow, if this 
be correct, it is of infinite importance for Congr mani na! n 
isters and churches to know it, and to awake from t a, fatal 
delusion ! ee ee 
» 4 jo 

Let us then, recur “to the law and to the ne 

Episcopalians be correct in this point, it feet -- dina- 


tions were so performed in the apostles’ days. . For here is ow 


‘is apa Eeanteb ' 
* Episcopalians, being perplexed with the scantiness ‘o thei 7 ts 


vor in the New Testament, betake themselves to the Old 
of finding something to their purpose. Here they find cnipeeidiag cin pied 


and levites acting under him. And this they atternpttnieEr ree a model o} 
the Gospel ministry, under the care of bishops. Butt tr i hel 
purpose. There was but one high priest in the church 0 

eminent type—not of modern bishops—but of Jesus C eet Great H ih 
Priest in Heaven, the one ‘+Shepherd and Bishop of srs faite rn 
church is under this one High Priest. And all her mini nder Hz 
brethren, on an official equality. This is the order of a Great H s g h Pj est him 
self. Had the Old Testament ministry been designed, im this par 

mode] of the ministry of salvation under the Gospel, we ‘ast revert back 
“Popery, where the one high priest of, the militant iss ial erh a up » in his hi Xe) 
ness, the pope. But nothing can be more vague than arguments Aad 
Christ so modelled his system of Gospel ministry, we welt iiot heive olfectel 
But he has not seen fit to do it. 


19 


bos 1 showed in the mount.” We, as believers in divine 

ion, can admit no otherrule. How then did the — 

ordain?) How was Paul ordained? How was Timothy? 

= they ordained by a single bishop, or apostle? Or have we 
“any account of an ordination, in the apostolic age, being so per- 
Mormed ? 2? Notone! We have not many accounts of ordinations 
5 in those days ; but we have some :—and these are sufficient for 
‘our guidance. The few instances recorded must have heen left 
‘onsacred record with 2 view to our instruction ; and they fur- 


ane petite 


- The first ordination recorded in the apostles’ days, was their 
ordination of deacons, to take care of the pocr, and the property 
of the church-Sce Acts vi. 1—6. But these, we fiod, were 
ordained by prayer, and imposition of the hands of the apostles. 
‘All the apostles are represented as mutually performing this 
business: “whom they set before the apostles ; and when they 
had prayed, they laid their hands qn them.”—Had Christ de- 
signed so to model his church, as that bishops singly should have 
ithe power to ordain ministers, would not some evidence of such 

design have been here furnished? But in the ordination even 
bof deacons, (the lowest officer in the church) ai! the apestles 
prensie must Unite. 


Of the ordination of Paul, and Barnabas, we read, Acts xiii. 
i—3. “ Now there were in the church that was at Antioch, 
‘certain prophets and teachers; as Barnabas, and Simeon, andl 
Lucius, and Manaen ;—as they ministered to the Lord, and 
fasted, the Holy Ghost said, Separate me Barnabas and Saul for 
ithe work whereunto I have called them. And when they had 
fasted and prayed, and laid their hands on them, they sent them 
away.” Here the ordination of those prime missionaries was 
performed, not by a bishop, or an apostle ; but by a presbytery ; 
fa collection of ministers in office ; but not a single apostle among 
iem! No; when Paul, the great apostle to the Gentiles, and 
Barnabas also with him, were to be ordained to their work, under 
immediate direction of the Holy Ghost, (a most important ordioa- 
tion indeed!) no direction was given, nor care taken, to send 
forthe apostles, nor even one of them! But a number of Gos- 
pel ministers, (elders, called prophets and teachers in the church 
jat Antioch) providentially present, fasting and worshipping, were 
taken to constitute the presbytery, or council, for their ordina- 
on! What can Episcopalians say to this ?. Does this afford a 

yarrant for their peculiarities? £ think this is the only ordina- 
Hion of any Gospel teacher, of which we have a distinct histerical 
ccount in the New Testament. It must certainly then, have 
heen designed that we should make much of this instance, in 
forming our sentiments relative to the ower and mode of ordain- 


20 


ing Gospel ministers. And surely it is far from deciding; that 
ordinations were to be performed exclusively by the apostles; 
or by any peculiar successors of the apostles, as superior officers: 
in the Gospel ministry. It is so far from deciding this, that it 
peremptorily desides the‘contrary. 3 do papel 
sen pi de Milage 
We find one more inspired directory, relative to the power. 
and mode of ordination, in a direct allusion to the ordination of 
Timothy. 1 Tim. iv. 14. “ Neglect not the giftthat is in thee, 
which was given thee by prophecy, with the slaying on of the 
hands of the prestytery.” Timothy's ordination then, was by 
the i imposition of the hands of a presbytery 3a word which im- 
ports a collection of presbyters, or elders ; such as the apostles 
ordained in every church. Where then have we the Jeast Aint 
in the word of God, which c can even seem to favor Episcopal 
peculiarities ? ie ee 
beers a. aby te vg 
The Episcopalians please themselves, that Timothy was com- 
missioned to ordain, and Titus commissioned to ordain, 
in every city! These they imagine must have been diocesan 
bishops ; and that present dioeesan bishops are here’ furnis 
with their éxclusive power of ordination! 2 Timothy, ii. 2. 
“ And the things, which thou hast heard of me among 
witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall 
able to teach others also.” But we have no evidence that th 
direction was given to Timothy any otherwise than as being jirs, 
(in point of gifts and improvements) among equals in office. 
Timothy, only.as a more experienced elder, was to lead the 
way in the fulfilment of this commission. But the question is, 
in what manner was this commission to be fulfilled? Did it 
constitute Timothy exclusively an ordaining council?) Or was 
he only to see to it, that it was regularly fulfilled by an ordaining 
presbytery, or council? Certainly the latter, provided he could 
obtain such a council. All the arguments already adduced, go 
to evince the truth of this: and the mode of ordination, in the 
days of Timothy, goes to confirm it. The command to Timothy 
was as completely fulfilled by his performing the duty by a nk 
bytery, as by bis performing the sacred work by himself alones 
Timothy well knew how he himself was ordained ; that isewaa 
by a presbytery, under the superintendance of his: “spiritual 
father Paul. He knew how Paul and Barnabas had been) or- 
dained, by acollection of elders. Can we imagine that me 
now directed to deviate trom such well known precedents? It 
is utterly incredible. We must have the most positive proof,’ 
before we shal! be able to belicve this, But the aiorecited text, 
afiuids no proul of such an event. ek BRR 
(ip aGA he iY 
Paul, when. directing Timothy to ordain faithfal men to-th 
Gospei minisiry, would take it tor granted that Timothy knew 


j 
Y 


21 


the proper mode of ordination ; that it was bya presbytery, (when 


such an one could be obtained.) * For both Paul and Timothy 


had themselves in that manner been ordained. Paul could not 
suppose that his own son fn the faith would ever form an idea 
of departing from this apostolic custom, and would fancy him- 
self to be a bishop to ordain in the modern sense of the word. 
‘No; Paul could have no kind of apprehension of this. He 
would have Timothy commit those things, received from him in 
a presbytery, and before many witnesses, as he had received 
‘them. But he had received them by presbyterzan ordination. 
How is it possible then for any to imagine, that the young 
‘Timothy would deviate from such an established rule? Or was 
Paul so fond of innovation, as to set Timothy into a new and 
‘untried course ? 

The command now applies (as it was designed to apply) to 
every ordained minister, down to the end of the world. “As 
likewise does the following: “ Lay hands suddenly on no man.” 

These directions’ were given to Timothy only as similar direc- 


tions would now be given to a leading missionary, who is going 


‘to some new and destitute region, to collect churches, and or- 
dain elders overthem. But such a missionary (if he were the 
‘man that he ought to be) would never dream of inferring from 

such directions froma President ofa Missionary Society, that 
-heis hereby constituted an officer in the ‘church, of superior 


rank over those whom he ordains. Neither would he conceive 
an idea, that he alone mnst ordain, provided he could obtain the 


assistance of other ministers. If ke could not obtain assistance, 
then, vo doubt, he must alone perform the sacred business. 


These remarks equally apply to the case of Titus, left at Crete 
to ** ordain elders in every city.” And both the noted authors, 


Whitby and Scott, frankly give up the idea, that Timothy and 


Titus were diocesan bishops in those places, The former says 
concerning Timothy, “‘ There is no satisfactory evidence of his 
vhaving resided longer at Ephesus, than was necessary to ex- 
ecute aspecial temporary mission there.” Of Titus he says, 
* He was left at Crete, only to ordain elders in every city ; and 
to set in order the things that were wanting ; and having done 


) this work, Paul sends for him the very next year to Nicapolis.” 


Scott says, “* We cannot, indeed, by any means, infer the divine 


right of Episcopacy from the authority exercised by Timothy, 
) Titus, and. the other evangelists,” This is a candid acknowl- 


_edgment of that great and good man ; and the truth of it is most 
evident. Iam tully convinced that nothing of the peculiar sene 
timenis of Episcopalians exists in the word of God; and that 
our eyes must be directed to luter periods, than the writings of 

»the sacred Voiunre, to find the origin of their systems 


w 


I proceed therefore, 


waht 


1 Re ou! iA Ma dies Me | 
II. To remark upon the origin of aoa 9 8 Aes sh e bn 


st ei 
Many Episcopalians admit, that as little wide ‘appears 


in the sacred pages in favor of their peculiarities. But they in- 
sist that something of their scheme was found to be necessary at 


a very early period ; and even had the countenance” of the apos-. 


tles, in their last days. I am not convinced there is any evidence 
of this,either withzn or without the covers of the sacred Volume. 
The Bible has been examined ; i with what success, the reader 


may judge. Let some attention now be paid to human men | 


es ni AS 


T am pleased with the candor of Mr. Scott upon this. subj ct 
7 


If he was educated an Episcopalian, and finds it convenie 


remain in their communion ; yet he expresses his views as fol- 
lows : “ We cannot, indeed, by any means, infer’ the’ divine — 
right of Episcopacy from the authority exercised by. Timothy, 


Titus, and other evangelists. Yet it is highly probable, at least, 


that it was early found expedient, and corducive to peace, to 


have a stated presiding inspector, of approved wisdom and 
piety, who might superintend the pastors and the affairs of a 
few neighboring churches, as moderator and censor ; ; and be 
peculiarly attentive to the appeintment of church officers. Hence 


a moderate Episcopacy was very early, probably even while 


some of the apostles lived, generally prevalent in the church.” 
Kg stoicd ethos 

ue a nct disposed to contest such a view of the subject as this. 
bject only to the affixing to it the term Zpiscopacy, \1 

er d much prefer some appellation more fitly caeennere of the 
social Christian connexion designed. Ge TAN 
e4y 5} 

The above scheme of Mr. Scott differs essentially fecha the 
Episcopacy urged upon us by American Episcopalians at this 


day ; and from what we find long cocina by ) ov oa 


church. 


hire: 


Mr. Scott’s first bishops, i call them so) if I understand 
him, were only stated presiding inspectors, prudently chosen by 
their equals, or by the churches, as moderators, and censors, 
te be peculiarly attentive to the appointment of church officers, 
and to church affairs. ‘They were chosen from a sense of ex- 
pediency, as being conducive to peace and good order, and as 
being fully consistent with the explanation which has been uae 
of the commission in our text. 

5 

How far these men, described by Mr. Scott, differ from’ the 

standing moderators or presidents of consociations of churches, 


23 


formed in the earliest days, others may judge. It is the opinion 
_of good men, (by no means Episcopalians) that it was, at a very 
early period, found expedievt, and a duty, for ministers and 
churches, in vicinities, to form with each other their peculier 
Connexions ; or to comscciate for their mutual benefit. Such 
-consociations. had their moderators, chosen to preside over 
them in this social Christian connexion. I am ready enough to 
_ apprehend, that this took. place with the countenance. of the 
-apostles ; and not only so, but with the full approbation of the 
great Head of the church. For such a consociating principle 
is believed to be implied in the New Testament, in directions 
given to the people of God ; and to have been in operation from 
the beginning—-See arguments in support of this belief, in the 
Major Panoplist for Novembes, 1816, page 489. 


_ Clement of Alexandria, in the second century, speaks of ‘‘ the 

first seat”.in the presbytery. In this clause, Episcopalians 
wish to find something in favor of prelacy. But the ‘ first 
seat” ina presbytery must surely be filled by a presbytery only, 
as wellas the /ast.. But this ‘‘ first seat,” spoken of by Clement, 
. Must be viewed as occupied by a standing moderator of what 
we may call a consociation—a consociate body of ministers and 
churches, formed for their. mutual benefit... Jerome, a most 
learned divine of the fourth century, Mosheim informs us, 
notes this order in the church. . Speaking against the usurpa- 
tion of bishops, (by and by to be noted) he says, “ As therefore 
the presbyters know, that by. the custom of the church, they are 
subject to him who is their president ; so let bishops know, that 
they are above presbyters more by the custom of the church, 
than by the trne dispensation of Christ.” Here we learn, from 
that noted father, that it was a well known principle in the 
church, that presbyters (pastors of churches) were, by established 
cusiom, subjectto him who was their president. Certainly thea, 
they hada standing president. . And he could be president to no 
other than a consociating connexion of brethren. Such a con- 
nexion, it isbelieved, was established in the earliest ages. 


It was froma gradual abuse of this prime Ecclesiastical crder, 
that Episcopacy arose... The term diskop, in the third century, 
instead of being applied to presbyters, as before, and in the 
apostles’ days, began w be appropriated to the prime presbyter, tr 
president. These presidents, or moderators, it seems, were 
chosen. for life. It became a custom to elect to this office the 
elder of a chief city : and it so happened, that his respectability 
became proportionate to the importance of the city in which he 
dwelt... Such presidents became noted and popular; till finally, 
as darkness and error increased, an exclusive tzt/e and cfficial 
authority were ascribed to them. They became bishops, 


° bat 


24 
ress nmencrsty ea St ie | x une gage oth anes log 
in a sense very dlierest from. the bishops i 
This same. process rapidly continued till the»bishop 
eclipsed all the bishops of other cities: and he claimed and 
obtained titles and prerogatives still) higher;/ till he c 
fulfil the prediction, ‘so that he, as Gud, sitteth 
of God, shewing himeelf that he is God.” caaghareeee 
:) # iret ending} capi usieio, 
alent the fiat WA aati Pog (in the sixteenth century) 
great degrees of the peculiarities of rr apres 


ages, were retained inthe Ecclesiastical gove 
ship of the Church of England. While they: 
corrupt doctrines of the papal hierarchy, much of node 
Ecclesiastical government, and many of her mode ¢ 
of worship and religion, were fomdly retainede . 4 4) 4 
ah om act plpmgrere ert 
This undoubtedly is a correct view of the origin of Episcopacy. 
More of the evidence, on which this view/of the» subject rests,» 
will be exhibited. 7 tenon tagp eatin amma tpili all 
boron @ qusecedel D snvbietgeni' 
Episcopalians have taken great pains to prove, from the early» 
writings of the fathers, that Episcopacy was i 
been remarked) at the close of the apostolic age, and under 
authority of the apostles. But here they appear not) | 
ficient, in point of unequivocal proof, than. in their attempts toy 
substantiate their scheme from the sacred Oracles.» ‘tie phos 


Very great dependance is made by pr on the epistles 
Ignatius, bishop of Antioch, who is said to have suffered 
tyrdom early in the second century. But we have twoebjéctions 
to their confidence in Episcopacy derived from» Ignatius. 
argue, that the Ignatian epistles have benanadaaeiaaadie 
relate to this subject, by later and spurious writers; that no de-» 
pendance is to be placed on what is found among his. writings, 
relative to the order of bishops, or the Episcopal 
of the church, in the first or second century», ». = ye) Go) 

¢feotamiget 4 

Dr. Chauncey, in a volume entitled, “ 4 Complete View of 
Episcopacy, as exhibited from the Sathers of the Christian church, 
until the close of the second century,” bas collected all rilipgs 
of those fathers now extant, which bear. payicnslaiemesiatdaat 


subject. As a historicai tonbcgpi weenie subject, this 


Poe Rs ™ 
* We haye here presented an agcount of all. somal ss Di I- 
ries; though the writings of some of them are eee arn jon 


mas, Clement of Rome, Polycarp, Igtatits, Papias, ( 
Agrippa, Hegosippus, Justin Martyr, Milito, Tatian, Proc 
Theophilus, Apolimarius, Pynitus, Philip, Modestus, Mosanus, Barces 
thimus, Irenceus, Victor, Polycrates, Bachyllus, Heraclytus, Maximus, App ra 
Candidus, Sextus, Judas, Arabianus, Serapion, Rhodon, Fantemus, , and Ci 
ment of Alexandria, 


25 


ook must be esteemed a valuable work ; and it is recommended 
to all, who have any doubts concerning the order of the church 
_in the two first centuries, as learned, judicious, and clear. 


» A fair exhibition is here made, of all the writings now to be 
found, from which any knowledge is to be derived relative to the 
officers and government of the church, in the first and second 
“centuries. In this werk it is made clearly evident, that. the 
authors of the two first centuries were utter strangers to Episco- 
spacy. Bishops and elders, with them, were the same: and not 
»one of them has left any thing in favor of such a system as 
»modern Episcopacy, if we except Ignatius. On him the advo- 
cates of prelacy make great reliance.. The epistles which bear 
his name, x indeed speak with zeal of three orders of men in 
the Gospeb'ministry—dishops, elaers, and preaching deacons. 
But we contend, that no dependance is to be placed on this testi- 
“mony. Some of the reasons for this, I will state ; or will show, 
that what appears in his epistles in favor of Episcopacy, must 
‘have been interpolated, or written after the days of Ignatius, by 
‘impostors. This was a noted practice in the third, fourth, and 
«subsequent centuries, as all agree, for designing persons to insert 
what they pleased, into the writings of eminent authors of earlier 
days. The Christian world became greatly corrupted with such 
spurious writings, as darkness was creeping upon the church, and 

the way preparing for the rise of the Manof Sin: and it is be- 

lieved that the writings and name of Ignatius were thus abused. 


| Fifteen epistles have appeared, bearing the name of Ignatius. 
Eight of these are (by the consent of all parties) rejected, as 
evidently spurious ; or destroyed with interpolations. The 
question then arises, who knows but some of the seven, that are 
retained, or some things in them, are likewise forgeries ? Some 
_able critics believe this to be the case. As the name of Ignatius 
was thus evidently abused, in the eight repudiated epistles ; 
what certain dependance can be placed on what is said, as being 
from him, in the other seven epistles, relative to the point under 
-eonsideration? especially considering that. those seven epistles 
talk a language, upon this point, which is not to be found in any 
_ of the other legitimate writings of the two first centuries. No 
such ideas are found in them, as are crowded into his epistles : 
But their testimonies go fully to confute those furnished in his 
epistles. The language of these seven retained epistles, relative 
to bishops, is such, as to testify against its having been written 
by Ignatius ; or indeed, that if it were written by him, he was 
far from being worthy of the confidence which has been ree 
posed in him. 1 


BD 


, 26 


Several quotations, from his abundant’ exaltations “of - the 
' bishops, found in the seven epistles, will evince the 
remark. He is made to say, * Let all evercacethentidioayh 
as the Father,”” [i. e. as God the Father] “You are joined 
to your bishop, as the church is to Christ, andjas. Jesus Christ 
to the Father.” “ It is evident ‘we ought to look - 
bishop, as we would do upon the Lord himsélf.” |“ Your bish- 
op presides in the place of God.” As the Lord: did 
without the Father, so neither do ye any thing without your 
bishop; andthe presbyters.” “See that ye follow ‘your bishop 
as Jesus Christ [followed] the Father.” He’ that honors the 
bishop, shall be honored of God ; but he that'toes any 
without his knowledge, minigters to the:devil.” ‘My soul 
be surety for them, that submit to their bishop, with their 
presbyter’, and deacons.” “ The Spirit’ Spake; [vo me} seyie 
on this bbed Do blr without, the bishop. Mihail baste ue 
; SiS) ne iin ed ges she 
Can this be the fain gtiage of the venerable Ignatius?» Did he 
Yearn any thing like this from his divine Master ?) Did’Christ 
utter such language relative to the exalted dignity of bishops 
‘The whele soul of Ignatius is made to appear filled with a’sense 
of the amazing importance ‘of the Episcopal dignity ! while at 
the same time it is taught that he himself was'a ma Had 
Ignatius learned this from Him, who was “meek and lowly im 
heart?” who says to his apostles, “ Be’ not ye'called 
for ote is your Master, even Christ ; and all ye are brethren” 
In the near view of his martyrdom, Ignatius is made: to utter 
such language as has been noted ; and, as one would think, to 
appear more concerned for the honor of bishops, than’ for that 
of Christ-Disgusting’ ¢éompound Greek words are found in 
these epistles, far from being consonant to the’ simplicity of the 
age in which Ignatius lived ; but very consonant to the ‘corrupt 
ages which followed ; such as calling his brethren God-worthy, 
God:bearers, Temple- bearers, sp _— Ghest-bearers ; 
ae himsel, > God-bearer. eveyt moc bales ail 
a ae ED | $83 pki sit 
The following sentence ‘appears in bi epistle t 
sians :—“t E exhort you, that. you ‘study ended vabidengabein 
divine concord ;. your bishop presiding in the'place’ of God ; 
your presbyters in the place of the council of the apostles 5 and 
your deacons, (most:-dear, to me) being entrusted” with the 
ministry of Fesus Christ. Here deacons; ‘as such, are made 
ministers of Christ ; contrary to their express apostolic com- 
mission, Acts vi. 1. —Bishops. here, like the pope, are putin the 
place of God ; and’presbyters in the place of | the apostles. The 
correctness of the latter idea I admit: But it is giving up 
_Episcopacy, to admit that the presbyters (elders) ora ony in 
the same commission with the apostles. 


27 
| ae ® 


> In another passage, Ignatius. is made to say, Let all rever- 
‘tence the deacons, as Fesus Christ.” Can such writings be receiy- 
ed» as the genuine productions of so great and good a man as 
‘Ignatius ?., They. appear not like the productions of the first.or 
‘second centuries ; but like the corrupt productions of darker 
‘ages ; exalting the bishop into the place of God ; and making 
religion much to. consist in a blind passive confidence in his 
infallibility !; Such a sentiment forms a great contrast with the — 
true religion of Jesus Christ ; as well as with the writings of the 
cotemporaries of Ignatius. 

But after all, let it be remembered, not a word appears In the 
Ignatian epistles, to show that the bishops of the period in which 
they were written, possessed the exclusive power of: ordination, 
of confirmation, or of the government of the church. And the 
bishop there described, was so far from being a diocesan bishop, 
‘that he was evidently parochial, presiding over a single church. 
vAll his charge met in one place. And he was required to know 
“évery person under his care by name; and to pay attentiop to 
“every man-servant, and maid-servant. Certainly then, he could 
mot be a diocesan bishep, presiding over many churches. Those 
‘Ignatian sentiments, (by whomsvever they were ‘petined) were 
produced after the ambitious distinction between dishops and 
elders was clearly under way, and was struggling to gain import- 
“ance ; but before diocesan prelacy was well digested, or much 
understood, » ! 
_ These writings, imputed to Ignatius, are important authorities 
_ with Episcopalians, to prove the existence of prelacy in the first 
ages from the apostles. But Dissenters find a sufficiency o 

writings, in those ages, of indisputable authenticity, which shew 
that they had no knowledge of any such sentiments. 


i 


joined for the benefit of those de may not fiad it convenient to 

- Itis in those writings clearly 

»and second centuries, but e/ders and deacans.. These are often 

»spoken. of; but no order officially superior to elders, is 

in those writings mentioned, or implied. The writers of 

» those days often speak, as did the apostles, of the same persons 
»being both edders and bishops. bie dk fa 


ay 


y atan 


‘ Some of the words.and sentences of those authors are pressed 
into the service of modern Episcopalians. But with what cor- 


28 


the subjoined note.* ath oy ne! Rh gS 
; 4 Whyis ab 1 RR ea | 
* 1. When Hermas cautions his brethren against aspiring after‘ first seats, 
and seeking vain honors, Episcopalians are fond of supposing these. seats 
must have been the episcopates of diocesan bishops. Upon the san e prin P 
if any preacher now should caution his brethren against ambition, and aspiring 
after ‘ first seats,” and to be called Rabbi, he must be esteemed an Episcopa~ 
lian !——In one passage, in a diffuse strain, Hermas speaks of ‘* apostles, and 
bishops, and doctors, and ministers.” Here he is supposed to favor Episcopacy ! 
But this passage as clearly makes an official distinctiog between apostl ‘ 
bishops, as between bishops and doctors, or teachers. And if the sentence were’ 
designed to distinguish different official grades of ministers, it makes four orders. 
This is one too many, even for Episcopalians: But how often do we speak of — 
** apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors, and teachers?” Does. i ites] 
Episcopalians ? ba’ sh a ‘al 
2. Clement of Rome has, by some Episcopalians, been brought in, to testify: | 


in their favor. And indeed, should we admit that certain 


eer itic at tack 


b 
him, were truly his, and were not gross impositions, produced in later and 
periods, he must be esteemed an Episcopalian. The ‘*Apostolical Constitutions,” 
*¢ Apostolical Canons,” ‘¢ Recognitions,” ‘¢ Clementinas,” “ Prefixed Epistle of 
Clement to James,” and the “‘ Epitome of the Acts of Peter,” which bear the 
name of Clement, are most clearly spurious. But yery few are dis posed vu 
plead for them. They form a most wretched contrast ‘with the writings of the 
apostles. They inform, that bishops are to be * venerated and honored with all® 
kinds of honor ;”-as having ‘‘ received from God the power of life and death,;in: 
judging sinners; and condemning them to eternal flames.” They exh ne 
eople to ‘* reverence their bishops as kings, and to honor them as their : 

n these writings we find forms of prayer to be used at the ** ordinations of bish-' 
ops, presbyters, deacons, readers, and singers.” Here we find ‘the Papal use, 
of ‘ oil in baptism” prescribed. Here also is an “ office for the dead,” to inter-_ 
cede for them, that God would “ pardon their sins, and receive their souls.” — 
In these writings we are presented with rules for the form and magnificence of 
houses for public worship; that they must be “+ oblong, and facing the east‘? 
they must have an ‘altar ;’ a ‘ bishop’s throne’ in such a place sere apne 
must appear in ‘ splendid, shining vestments, and must make u on his eta 
the sign of the cross’—and much of such nonsersical gibberish. Those therefore, 
who will receive the testimonies said to be of Clement, in favor of Episcopacy, 
must acknowledge all this wicked trumpery, as coming from him; yea, fromthe 
apostles. ‘eat Pete. ot 

But the writings of Clement, which are evidently his, exhibit very different 
sentiments. Here we find nothing of Episcopacy ; but quite the reverse.—In 
his celebrated Epistle to the Corinthians, he labors to compose their differences 
with ‘their elders, which differences had become very notoriousand alarming.— 
Here, if that church had been under bishops, or had known such an order, it 
certainly must have been ascertained, and the point decided. But not a ‘word 
does he say, relative to such an order; though his subject imperiously demand- 
ed it, had such an order existed. He reminds them, that the apostles, ** preach- - 
ing through cities and countries, constituted their first fruits (meanil ; first con- 
verts) for bishops and deacons.” And he says, alluding to a prophecy in Isaiah 
lx. 19. ‘*] will appoint their bishops in righteousness, and their deacons in faith.” 
Only these two orders of Ecclesiastical officers are to be found in the genuine 
writings of Clement. He blames the Corinthians for “ casting their presby 

[elders] out of their Episcopacys” Certainly he would not have written thus, 
had their Episcopacy been hke that of modern date ; or had not elders and bish- 
ops been one and the same. The whole strain of his Epistle teres ie that 
Clesnent knew any thing of an order of ministers, officially superior to the elders, 
‘whom the apostles ordained over the churches. oti eo sy 

3. Polycarp, bishop of Smyrna, is introduced as seeming to favor Episcopacy. 

And as he wasa disciple of St. John, and an eminent father, his testimony must 

be of vast weight. One sentence of bis is selected, and pressed into this service. 


29 


“Those words and sententee thus improved, do not, by any 
‘Means, necessarily convey @e sense thus forced upon them. 
‘Some of them hard'y seem to convey it: and other parts of the 
Writings of the same authcrs generally, do much more clearly 
imply the reverse of such sentiments. _ Many learned and pious 
Episcopalians, and even bishops, have made frank and full con- 
fessions upon this subject. Bishop Craft,*in a book entitled, 
Rote ‘ f ‘ 
tis the address of his Epistle to the Philippians :—“ Polycarp, and the presbyters 
‘that are with him, to the church of God at Philippi.—Here he scems to be a 

‘ sane bishop, having his presbyters underhim. ‘‘ Polycarp, and the presby- 
ers that are with him,” But does his having presbyters with him, prove that he 
was any thing more than a presbyter with them 2 It is readily admitted, that he 
Was provably their moderator, or president. But how weak must be the cause, 
which feels the need of such arguments as this! The Epistle of Polycarp exhibits 
full evidence that he was a total stranger to diocesan prelacy. For he proceeds 
describe what deacons, must be—blameless ; and then what their elders must 
be—compassionate, merciful: and no other order of church officers is hinted by 
him. He exhorts the Philippians to be “subject to elders, and deacons.” Here 
is the same sentiment with that of Paul, relative to our question. Paul, in his 
address to the Philippians, says, ‘‘’'To the saints at Philippi, with the bishops, 
‘and deacons.” Polycarp calls these same officers, ‘‘ elders and deacons.”» Epis- 
‘fopalians, to evade the force of this evidence from the united testimony of Paul 
_and Polycarp, say, the bishop of Philippi might have been absent. Others say. 
he might have been dead. Upon which the noted Jameison makes the following 
remark: ‘Philippi is no less fatal to the Episcopal, than its neighboring plains 
were to the Pompeian cause. For Episcopalians are stung and confounded with 
e very first words of Paul to that church. And among their other shifts, they 
answer, that the bishop was often absent. But there was 2 good number of years 
between the writings of Paul and those of Polycarp, to the Philippians ; and yet 
owe see the bishop is never come home! .Why tarry the wheels of his lordship’s 
chariot? Hath he not sped at court, that after so long an absence, there is 
no news of his return? Nor are we likely eyer to hear any more of him: for 
now, they say, he is dead!” 

_ A. . Papias, bishop of Hierapolis, says nothing, in his writings, which favors 

Episcopacy. But he calls St. John, of whom he Imd been a hearer, a presbyter, 
(elder) which he would not have done, had St. John held an office superior to 

resbyters, _ 

. e ae Martyr, who penlengis testimony with his blood, about A. D. 160, 
speaks of iwo offices in the church, and only two ; which he calls the president, 
and deacon. In his * Apology” for the Christians, he describes the celebration 
of the supper. The sacred symbols are delivered ‘/o the president of the bre- 
thren.’ After the prayer, he says, ‘ those that are called among us deacons, dis+ 
tribute to every one of those that are present.” Relative to their public worship, 
he informs, that after the reading of the holy Scriptures, ‘ the president admon- 
ishes and exhorts.’ Not a hint is found in this noted author, of but one order of 
ministers; though he wrote largely to the Roman emperor, describing the state 
and practice of the church, to induce‘him to abolish persecution. 

_ 6. Irenzus, bishop of Lyons, is mentioned with some confidence, by Epis- 
copalians, as affording evidence in their fayer. It is true, some of his words, 

en by themselves, may seem to favor this system. But when we consider his 
object, and consult other parts of his writings, all this appearance vanishes at 
once ;_and his testimony is fully in our favor. This I will now make to appear ; 
and that he applied the titles bishop and elder promiscuously to the same persons; 
and had no idea of three, nor yet of two official ranks in the gospel ministry.— 
‘Be pleased then, to pay a candid attention to the following comparisons of some 

different parts of his writings. B 

_ Al.) _Irenzus says, (Lib. 3. cap. 3.) ‘* The apostolic tradition is present in 

eyery church. We can enumerate those, who were constituted bishops by the 


id ~ sere eas! poe 
“ Naked Truth? wiyn; “I hope my reader will see what weak 
proofs are brought for this distinction and superiority of order, 
(i.e. between bishops. and presbyters.) No Scripture; ne 
general consent cf primitive doctors and fathers ; no, motione. 
primitive father of note, speaking peetictlaety, pon cae 2h gan ve 


purpose.’ T est it ot fn wei 


This is “ naked truth” indeed! and seems ikea} great cons 
fession, for a modern bishop. It truly does appear, that impartial 


Wetbeady J, 
apostles in the ehurches, and their successors even to us, who. . 
thing,” (i. e. as those doctrines he was confuting.) Here, before we pro 
let it be stoted, that this author was not laboring to prove a succession of bishop 
from the apostles ; ; but a transmassion of doct ie from them. In hha thi: 
had occasion to mention, as a well known fact, a succession of bishops from 
apostles, who had transmitted the true faith. Amd he calls them | alte 
bishops, and eiders ; as you will see.—He proceeds: “ By shew ring th 
and declared faith of the greatest and most ancient b Ri 
received from the apostles,and as come to us through the success ion 
—Compare this with his following : (Lib. 3. eap. ° tage When 
Pe e heretics] to that apostolical tradition, which” 2 pene 

eb the succession of the presbyters, they oppose the 

that th ey are wiser than not only the presbyters, but the. 
then, his succession of bishops from the apostles, is only a : 
from the apostles: and his presbyters he ranks next in dignity 

(2.) He says, (Lib. 4. cap. 53.) “True knowled 
apostles, according to the succession of bishops, to iat | be ; 
church in every place, which doctrine hath reached us, meh in its most 
delivery.”—Compare this with the following; (Lib. 4. cap. ay r 0 
presbyters in the church, who have succession, as we have : 
apostles ; who with the succession of the episcopate, received of truth.” 
Thus the succession of bishops from the apostles, (which he had so often * shown’ 
them) was no other than a succession of elders; and their ype: was the 
succession of the episcopate ; i. e. they were the true bishops ; ; ‘ 
confirmed under the next particular, where he calls this episcopal Lids ai sby 
Fate. ae e 

(3.) Doeshe say, (Lib. 5. cap. 20.) “ These are far amet 
to whom the apostles delivered the churches?’ He shews his 
ing, (Lib. 4. cap. 44.) “ We ought therefore to adhere to th tie eatery wi 
keep the apostles’ doctrine, and, together with the-order of the ipradtiyterade: 
shew forth sound speech. Such presbyters the church nometsitey) and of | rho 
the prophet says, I will give them princes in peace, and bishops i hteousness.”” 
—Thus, let Irenzeus explain his own words; and his bishops, to e chu: 
‘was committed, are at the same time presbyters, whom the chee ‘nourishes ; 
-of which presbyters he makes Isaiah say, ‘1 will sive them ee ne Saeco 
ness.” Here is but one order in the ministry. These he ealls 
ops. His episcopate was but a presbyterate. His succession of bishop was but 
‘a succession of elders. 

(4.) He says, (Lib. 3. cap. 3.) “The apostles foanding prion re | 
that church, [the Roman] delivered-to Linus the episcopate ; Anacletus 
ceeded him ; after him Clement obtained the episcopate from the apostles ; to 
Clement sueceeded Quaristus; to him Alexander; then Sextus; and after hin 
‘Telosphorus ; then Hugynus; after him Pius; then Anicetus ; and when cmd 
‘had succeeded Anicetus, then Elutherius had the episcopate in the twelfth 
By this succession, that tradition in the church, and sar tee 
which is from the apostles, is come to us.” 


¥ On title page of Chauncey’s Complete View. a Meet wie d 


> 


$1 


_ readers may see, without having occasion to boast of any peculiar . 


_ visual acumen, the weakness of the proofs adduced for the pre- 


_ [atic distinction between bishops and elders. 
ee ; a 


In the third century, things appeared clearly operating toward 
the establishment of a prelacy... Upon this period Dr. Mosheim 
says, “ The face of things began now to change, in the Christian 
church. The ancient method of Ecclesiastical government 
seemed in general stil! to subsist. While at the same time, by 
imperceptible steps, it varied from the primitive rule, and 


_ Here the modern Episcopalian seems to find the first line of diocesan bishops 
in Rome, from the apostles to the twelfth bishop. And could this account be 
Recon, to his reader, with nothing else from the same author, his reader might 
likely to become a proselyte to his scheme. But all the pleasing dream of 
‘argument vanishes, when he comes to read in the Epistle of the same author to 
Victor, the following account of the same succession of bishops, by name :— 
*« These presbyters, (in the church of Rome)before Sotor, who governed the 
hurch, which thou (Victor) now governest, I mean Anicetus, Pius, Hugynus, 
‘Telesphorus, and Sextus, they did not observe it, (the day of Easter.) And 
\those presbyters, who preceded you, though they did not observe it.themselves, 
yet sent the eucharist to those of the other churches, who did observe it. And 
when blessed Polycarp, in the days of Anicetus, came to Rome, he did not much 
persuade Anicetus to observe it, as he (Anicetus) declared that the custom of 
le presbyters, who were his predecessors, should be retained.” 
_ This passage totally ruins the Episcopal arguments from Ireneus. For his suc- 
‘cession of bishops is only a succession of presbyfers. _And Anicetus, bishop of 
Rome, denominated his ‘‘ predecessors” “ presbyters.°? These bishops are the 
‘elders, whom the apostles ordained in every church. Thus Irenzus is so far from 
favoring the Episcopal cause, that his writings furnish full evidence in opposition 
it. This will appear more fully, if possible, when we consider the rank in 
‘which ‘his Gallic church placed Irenzeus himself. He is usually called ‘ the 
bishop of Lyons,” and was a notable character: His church had occasion te 
‘send him on a message to Rome, with letters to the bishop. The elders of Lyons 
‘wrote his letter of introduction, which begins thus: ‘Father Hleutherius, we 
wish you health in all things, and always in God. We have requested Irenzus, 
our brother and colleague, to deliver to you these letters.” Here, instead of 
‘styling Irenzus their bishop, or Right Reverend Father in God, they call him 
‘their ‘+ brother and colleague.» Eusebius informs, that Irenzus, in these letters, 
is called a presbyter; upon which bishop Stillingfleet remarks, ‘+ Irenaeus is sent 
By the church of Lyois, on a message to Rome; when, notwithstanding his be- 
‘ing bishop, they call him presbyter of that church. What could amy one imagine, 
‘but that the bishop was nothing but senior presbyter, or one who had a primacy 
‘ef order among, but no divine right to a power of jurisdiction over, his fellow 
‘presbyters ?”” 
_ But, say Episcopalians, Irénaeus iz one place speaks of “bishops and pres- 
byters.”” Does not this import a distinction of offices?) And does it not give the . 
superiority to bishops, who are put first? ‘Reply. Let this one passage then, 
decide the dispute ; we will rest the whole weight of our cause upon it. The 
| sete this: “He (Paul) applies himself to the bishops and presbyters, con- 
vened at Miletus, who were of Ephesus, and the neighboring towns, because he 
‘was going to Jerusalem.’” Now, please to recollect the interview here alluded 
to, Acts xx. 17. Paul called ‘to him “the elders of the church” of Ephesus: 


‘and, among other things; he charged ‘them: to ‘‘'take heed to all the flock, over 


which the Holy Ghost had made them overseers”—in the original, bishops. 
Irenaeus viewing this passage, calls those elders of the church “ bishops and el- 
ders,” because they were informed that'the Holy Ghost had made them bishops. 
sk, do we find them, in this passage, two orders of men? And do we find 
here bishops superior to elders? Was it possible for Irenaeus, or for any man ot 


32 . 

degenerated toward the form of a religious monarchy. For 
bishops aspired to higher degrees of power and authority, than 
they had formerly possessed; and not only violated the rights 
of the people, but also made gradual encroachments upon the 


privileges of the presbyters. And, that they might cover thei 
‘usurpations with an air of justice, and an appearance of redsor 


ie wrth. a able % 
common sense, to view them thus? No; all see, on the face of the passage 
that both these titles were applied to the same persons. The elders were i 
formed, that the Holy Ghost had made them bishops. Are Episcopalians g 
that this shall be viewed as a fair specimen of their logic, of their fairness in quot- 
ing authors, and of the strength of their arguments? peucohehap 

Sentences, detached from their connexion, may be add ' 

able hand, be made to appear very plausible, in favor of Episcopacy. But wher 
they come to be examined, and compared with other parts of the same author, 
the speciousness of the argument vanishes at once! And itis matter 


7. Clement of Alexandria is the last who wrote in the second cent 
will be the last here noted. Episcopalians eek to make him testify i 
vor; but in vain. He in one passage speaks of * bishops, presbyters 
cons ;”’ therefore some imagine he must have been an Episcopalian! Bu 
examine the passage. In a figurative strain, he says, ‘ Now in the: church 
the progression of bishops, presbyters, and deacons, I take to be i 
the evangelical glory, and of that dispensation which, the ane pe I 
look for, who following the steps of the apostles, have lived according to # 
Gospel. These men, the apostles write, being taken up into the clouds, shall 
Grst miister as deacons ; then be admitted to a rank in the presbytery, accord- 
ing to the progression in glory.” Now, is it more certain that this author meant, 
in that first clause of his paragraph, to intimate an official distinction between 


= 


bishops and elders, than that Irenaeus, in his same phraseology just notec pean 
such a distinction? But Clement himself decides, in the same passage, that he 
meant no such distinction. For though in a diffuse style he mentions bishops, 
presbyters, and deacons ; yet when he comes to confine his though the 
ces found in the church, he finds but two, deacons and presbyters. “Hi saints 
(arrived to glory) first minister as deacons, and then as preshyters. Now had 
‘Anown of dioce€n bishops, he would surely have added, * and then as bi 
for this would better have illustrated his subject—the agenennion date 
stopping then, short of such a superior order of bishops, shows that he had no 
of such anorder. He knew of no office higher than a pi .—Men 
speak of ‘ evangelists, pastors, and teachers,’ without designing to be considered 
Episcopalians. iced aad, colteeengl 
_ Clemeut, in one passage, speaks of ‘ presbyters, bishops, and deacons.’ 
he here mean, that presbyters are superior to bishops? Nothing is more vain tl 
such arguments.—Clement once speaks of ‘ the first seat? in the presbytery. 
This, to be sure, Episcopalians must have filled by a bishop! But we say, No; 
i# must have been filled by a presbyter; or it was not a seat in the presbytery. 
It was filled by a moderator, or president. oe AH oeh Bye R DE 
In other passages, Clement is full in our favor. _He says—* In like manner, in 
the church, the presbyters maintain the form of that kind, which makes men 
ter en the Fsig esi! that which is ministerial. In both these Peasy ren 
angels serve God in the dispensation of earthly things.? Surely here, | 
knew of but two offices In the church—elders, pa deacons. ama ‘ft 
Clement relates an account of St. John: That he once beheld a young n 
of good appearance ; and John said to a bishop present, * who was s i I 
? ‘i rh 


Icommit this young man to thy custody ;’ meaning, probably, t 

train him up for the ministry. The account continues: * And the 

felder] taking the young man, brought him to his house. Here, in © samme 
1 , ;¥ » ts il 


; 3$ 
S225). ’ 
they published new doctrines concerning the nature of the church, 

‘and of the Episcopal dignity.”* 


_ Here then, the evil was clearly under way. We find, in some 
authors of that period, that the titles, bishop and elder, had by 
this time become distinguished. The style bishop was now 
appropriated to the standing moderator, or president, of their 
consociating connexion ; and the title of presbyter, or elder, to 
the other pastors of churches. And some of these moderators, 
or presidents, being thus dignified with the title of bishop in its 
appropriated sense, began to exercise an ambitious desire to be 
received as a superior order in the Gospel ministry. To prepare 
the way for this, they labored and published +‘ new doetrines 
concerning the Episcopal dignity.”—But yet ample evidence is 
‘exhibited, in that period, that these new styled bishops were 
by no means generally received as possessing a superior office. 
Firmilian, bishop of Czsarea, ‘in a letter to Cyprian, asserts, 
** All power and grace are placed in the church where elders 
preside ; in whom is vested the power of baptizing and of 
ordination.”*— Here Firmilian testifies, that elders did preside 
in the church, and had the power of erdination._ And no officer 
is by him admitted in the church as superior to elders. “ All 
power and grace (he says) are placed in the church, where 
elders preside.” 


In the fourth century, bishops had got their object of ambition 
nearly completed. The celebrated Mosheim gives this infor- 
mation of them at that time: ‘‘ Their first step was, an entire 
‘exclusion of the people from a'l posts in the administration of 
Ecclesiastical affairs. And afterward they by degrees divested 


breath. he calls that preacher, to whom John committed this trust, the bishop, 
and the elder. So easy was it for Clement, as it had been with the apostles, and 
all others, to speak of the same men as both elders and bishops. 

In short, Episcopalians have nothing to support their cause, in the writings of 
the two first centuries. After this period, and in the dark ages, they find much 
in their favor, if indeed it may be said to be in their favor. It is then, matter of 
very great astonishment, to see the confidence with which Episcopal writers as- 
sert, that “‘it is evident unto all men,’ that their cause descended from the 
apostles! that “¢ the Christian church, in the ages next succeeding the apostles, 
‘assert, with one universal consent,” that this is the case! thatit “ has the earli- 
est records of the church to support it, and there was scarce any article of faith 
more firmly believed !””—One Episcopal writer adds, ‘‘ We have the same evi- 
‘dence that Episcopacy was the government of the primitive church, in the purest 
ages of Christianity, that we have for the canon of Scripture ! / If assertions 
would answer, in the room of truth and evidence, the cause of Dissenters is lost ! 
‘It is no wonder that multitudes of such round assertions should, in this country, 
gain some proselytes.. But many of the best Episcopal characters, not excepting 
some bishops, have felt and confessed the vast scantiness of arguments to support 
their cause. 


< 


® Kecle. Hist. Cent. es Pt. 2, ehap. 2. sect. 9, +t Olds’ Sermons, p. 167. 


" A wey told be | 
. . ole | 
te 1 a - | 
34 "ay Vas 


even the presbyters of their ancient privileges, and their primitive. 
authority, that they might have no importunate Protege 
control their ambition, or cppose their proceedings ; and, prin- 
cipally, that they might either engross to themselves, or dis- 
tribute as they thought proper, the possessions and revenue oF 
the church. Hence it came to pass, that at the conclusion ¢ 
this (the fourth) century, there remained no more than a meré 
shadow of the ancient government of the church. "Many of the 
privileges which had formerly belonged to the presby ters and. 
people, were usurped by the bishops.”* Waits Ri 


nf We 


a | 
Jerome, a most learned divine of this age, raised his warning 
voice against this impious usurpaticn; and in a forcible manner. 
evinced, that bishops were not, by divine @ppointment, a 
order superior to presbyters. He made the following conclu- 
sions: ** As therefore, the presbyters know, that by the customs. 
of the church they .are subject to him who is their president ; 
so Jet bishops know, that they are above presbyters more by the. - 
custom of the church, than by the true dispensation of Christ.”+ 
This is information fully to our purpose. We are here assured, 
from that good authority Jerome, that the subjection of the 
presbyters to their stated mcderators, (or presidents of conso- 
ciations) was cnly by the stated usage of the church: and the 
superiority of bishops to presbyters, (after all their pretences) 
was only by custom, and not by divine right. PEM hit Shiv 


Thus we learn the true origin of Episcopacy. Tt is not of 
divine institution! tis of human invention! Tt sprang up 
with the dark ages. It grew with their growth, and strengthened 
with their strength ; till it made the solemn experiment of the 
Romish hierarchy, lor twelve hundred and sixty years !” ty 


Let it be recollected, that the ambassadors of Christ have but 
one commission: that one commission cannot confer ‘different 
gtades of office: that we have no intimation of but one grade 
of office among the apostles, and their coadjuters and successors. 
The apostles were elders. ‘Those whom they ordained were 
elders, and also bishops. They, and all their successors to the’ 
end of the world, were comprized in the one grade of ambassa- 
dors of Christ, in the pronoun “ you” in the commission ; with 
whem the presence of Christ is to remain, till his last appear- 
ance.—They were to call no man father on earth. They were 
brethren, on an. ficial parity. Ordinations, in the apostolic age, 
were performed by presbyteries ; coliections of elders. 


* Eccle, Hist. Cent. IV. Pt. 2. Chap. 2. Sec. 2, 
t Olds, p. 170. 


ee 


at 


) 85 


© These most evident truths form some contrast with what we 
“behold in some parts of the Christian world; Arch Bishops, 
“Bishops, Right Reverend Fathers in God, Lords Spiritual, Deans, 
Arch Deacons, Prebends, Rectors, Curates, Preaching- Deacons. 
’ Thus wo see by what authority the validity of the ordination 
‘and standing of the many thousands of Congregational or 
Presbyterian ministers is called in question, and denied. This 
denial can be no small thing. It goes to unchurch a very great 
‘part of the visible kingdom of Christ; and a part not the most 
‘dubious, in point of real practical religion, and tokens of the 
divine presence and approbation. Is this walking charitably? 
‘Ts it a genuine fruit of righteousness, and of the Spirit of Christ? 
Tf great and good men have fallen into this mistake, does this 
“circumstance render it right and safe to follow them? Are 
there not great ard good men also of the Dissenters? muliti- 
tudes of divines of eminent talents and piety, and who have 
been instrumental in the salvation probably, of millions of souls? 
But, ‘to the law and to the testimony.” We are not to com- 
pare ourselves with fellow-men: and we are to follow no men 
any farther than they follow Christ. 


“at proceed, 


_ II. To remark upon some things in the Episcopal system, 
which I cannot approve. ©’ | 


When a system of religion is urged upon us, as being apos- 
tolic and divine, and insinuating that we, in being destitute of 
its peculiarities, have essentially departed from the word of God; 
the prepagators of such a system ought to expect that the merits 
of their scheme will be examined. We must, in such a case, 
“search the Scriptures ;” and search the peculiarities of the 
scheme urged upon us. Truth and righteousness will never be 
injured by investigation. 


I shall not confine myself to much system, in proposing my 
difficulties. And I shall remark only upon some of the difficul- 
ties which are most glaring. 


1. Some things, relative to their administration of infant 
baptism, appear to me very exceptionable. I have believed, that, 
in order for children to be proper subjects of infant baptism, one 
at least of the parents must, in a judgment of charity, be a spi- 
ritual chila of Abraham. And I have believed, that in the ded- 
ication of children to God, in this holy ordinance, the parents 
in covenant do solemnly engage to “ train up their children ia 

‘the nurture and admenition of the Lord.” 


, x ” . . : 
But, as I understand the administration of Episcopalians 
among us, any persons, who please, may bring their children to” 
baptism, whether they exhibit the /east evidence of being the true 
spiritual children of Abraham, or not. And I understand that 
Mo very express covenant engagement is required of the parents, 
to train up their children for God: but that this duty is transfer- 
red to sponsors, or god-fathers—They are required to make 
indeed very, solemn promises; but generally they are in no very 
favorable situation to perform them. The god-fatlers are re- 
quired to make such engagements, in behalf of the children about 
to be baptized, that the children are afterward caeense hie 
their catechism, to say of their god fathers and god-moth 
* They did promise and vuw three things in my name—1, That 
T should renounce the devil, and all bis works ; the pomps and 
vanities of this wicked world; and all the sinful lusts of the 
flesh—2. That [ should believe all the articles of the Christian 
faith—3. That I should keep God’s holy will and command- 
ments, and walk in the same, all the days of my life.” Truly, 
these are solemn vows! One would think they contain as really 
too-much for any creature to promise, as the parents are requir- 
ed to promise too little. How can a mam promise and vow that 
other people’s children sha/l do such gracious things as these? 
and shall persevere in them, till they die? One would think 
that no mere man is able to engage such things. saree 
But what is generally done, by such sponsors, to parva al 
vows? Common report, relative to this, is not favorable. And 
is it not too often the case, that little sr nothing more, than to 
make the solemn engagement, is ever attempted? The child is 
baptized ; and sealed by the priest with the sign of the cross, 
(unless the parents ebject to this latter sealing.) Is this sealing 
with the cross, of divine, or of human origin? What human 
power has any right to annex this to Christ's institution of bap- 
tism ?—The priest then says, “ Seeing now, dearly beloved bre- 
thren, that this child is regenerated, and grafted into the body 
of Christ’s church, let us give thanks unto Almighty God for 
those benefits ; hud with one accord make our prayers unto him, 
that this child may lead the rest of his life according to this be- 
ginning”—And he adds, “ We yield thee hearty thanks, most 
~merciful Father, that it hath pleased thee to regenerate this in- 
fant with thy Holy Spirit, to receive him for thine own child, 
by adoption, and to incorporate him into thy holy church,”— 
What shal! we say of this service? All who have Bibles, anal 
believe in regeneration by the Spirit of God, are left to their own’ 
reflections. | 


2. My difficulties are by no means less, when I contemplate 
the Episcopal rite of confirmation. Ino their printed forms, it is 


37 


_ provided, that, so soon as children are come to competent age, 
_and can say the creed, the Lord’s prayer, the ten commandments, 
and can answer to the other questions in the short catechism, 
(a brie? catechism in their books) they shull be brought to the 
bishop for confirmation. The bishop, (after reading a preface, 
reminding them of the promises of their god-fathers and god- 
mothers) enters on the prayer for them, which begins thus: 
* Almighty and everliving God, who hast vouchsafed to regen- 
_erate these thy servants, by water and the Holy Ghost, and hast 
given unto them forgiveness of all their sins”—then laying his 
hands on each one, at the close of a short intercession, he enters 
on the collect ef prayer for them, as God’s servants; and adds, 
“upon whom, after the example of thy holy apostles, we have 
now laid our hands, to certify them, by this sign, of thy favor, 
and gracious goodness toward them.” 

With a degree of astonishment, I feel inclined to ask, What 
part of ourinspired system of Christian duties is here fulfilled ? 
Is this rite the well known token of regeneration? Has the 
bishop such knowledge of the human heart, and of the invisible 
‘operations of grace, that he may thus publicly and officially appeal 
to God, that all the mixed multitudes, who apply for confirmation, 
are indeed regenerated by the Holy Ghost, and have received the 
JSorgiveness of all their sins? Has God appointed the imposition 

of the bishop’s hands on all, who learn to repeat the creed, the 
Lord’s prayer, the ten commandments, and their few answers of 
‘catechism, as the well known ¢oZen, to certify to them their actual 
possession~of the divine grace and favor? Is this the true 
evangelical pledge of the faith of assurance? I see not but it 
is thus, if what the bishop solemnly declares to the Almighty be 
true! Butif so, we have got to learn our Bibles over again. 
For we never before understood them in this light. The apostles, 
under inspiration, did indeed (among other miracles wrought 
for the confirmation of the Gospel in those early days) impose 
their hands on real converts, in order to communicate to them 
(in certain instances where God directed) the miraculous gifts of 
the Holy Ghost. But these gifts have long since ceased from 
the church, as unnecessary. Paul assured the Corinthians, they 
-were thus te cease. ‘* Charity never faileth. But whether 
there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, 
they shall cease ; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish 
-away.” And did not such miraculous gifts in fact cease, when 
the canon of Scripture became full? Why then should that 
special act of imposition of hands, (which God saw fit for that 
time to make the means of conveying those miraculous gilts ;) 
why should this dry form, this shadow without the substance, be 
»supposed to continue? Nota word do we find ef any divine 
yassurance that it was to continue. Nota single example do 


ely 


33 4 ye 
* 


we find of it, as practised by the immediate successors of the 
apostles. And not an instance of it do we find, (according to 

my present apprehension) in the first ages of the church, as 
though it were to be received asa permanent divine ordinance. 
If this rite was found in a corrupt church in the dark ages, one 
would think that simply this could furnish no sufficient v warrant 
for bishops now to practise it. pave 
In one text, Heb. vi. 1., we read of “ the ‘doctrine of tisie : 

on of the hands.”” But no hint of evideriee is furnished, that this 
text alludes to any thing more than the imposition of hands in 
the consecrations of church officers. It can furnish no sufficient 
warrant for the practice under consideration. For simply the 
fact, that the apostles did impose their hands on some new con- 
verts, to confer on them the miraculous gifts of the Holy Ghost, 
no more furnishes a warrant for their successors in the Gospel 
ministry to attempt to imitate them in this, than the fact, that 
the apostles wrought many other miracles, furnishes their present 
successors with a warrant constantly to attempt (though they 
never succeed) to work miracles. Let me ask, Do the miraeu- 
Icus gifts of the Holy Ghost, én these days, ever attend the im- 
position of the bishop’s hands? If not, God surely does not 
seem much to own them, in this their attempt to imitate his 
inspired apostles, who imposed hands on the regenerate to com- 
municate the miraculous gifts of the Spirit. / 


The rite of confirmation, as now used by Episcopalians, seems 
most unhappily calculated to confirm poor souls in delusion, 
relative to the nature and necessity of regeneration by the Spirit 
of Grace. Unless prevented by a miracle of grace, how can it 
do otherwise than confirm unconverted youth in the false hopes 
and vain belief that they are indeed “‘ regenerated by the Spirit 
of God, and have received forgiveness of all their sins,” merely 
because they are subjects of some external ceremonies? The 
subjects of confirmation are assured of regeneration and pardon, 
in a most solemn appeal to God, by the venerable and learned 
bishop, who is warranted to make this appeal by the united and 
highest authorities of the Episcopal church. This is done in 
the solemn assembly of those, whom children and youth are 
taught to hold in veneration ; as parents, god fathers, god- 
mothers, and ail the chureh. Is it probable that youth, who are 
not savingly convinced of sin by the Spirit of God, and who are 
already prone to think well of themselves, and to cry, Peace ; is. 
it at all probable, that such youth, under confirmation, will not 
be led to believe that things thus taught them are true ? 


Will any comfort themselves here, by saying, It is so glaring- 
ly evident, both that these external ceremonies are not regenera: 


we 


39 


ion by the Holy Spirit, and also that they are not an infallible 
oken’ that their subjects have obtained such regeneration, that 
hese subjects can be in little or no dangerof being hence con- 
irmed in a false hope of being already subjects of grace! I 
inswer : : Can this be an honorable and pious reason, or even 
alliation for the use of such language, that it is so manifestly 
intrue, there can be little or no danger of its being believed ? 
Yhy should such solemn assurances be given, unless they be 
esigned to be believed ? 


1 well know it is said by some advocates for Episcopacy, 
4 edo not pretend, either that baptism, or confirmation, actually 
$ regeneration ; nor yet an infallible evidence of it. "Reply — 
Vhy then is the solemn appeal made to Almighty God, that the 
ubjects of these ceremonies are regenerated by his Spirit, and 
re pardoned? Can God be pleased with such assertions, when 

evidence exists of their truth? Should any comfort them- 
ie that there can be little or no danger of people’s coming 

0 the rite of confirmation, till they have evidence of regenera- 
ion and pardon: Aeply—Fact decides otherwise. Are not 
ome confirmed, who not only give no evidence of grace, but 
xhibit ample evidence of the want ofit? Indeed no distin- 
uishing evidence of grace is required of the candidates for 
onfirmation,* 


1. — 
* Relative to duties, which the church owes to baptized children, 1 am us- 
rilling to dismiss that part of the subject, without remarking, that it is matter of 
ne deepest regret that our churches have been so sadly in the habit of neglecting 
aptized children. I believe that great and solemn duties, in relation to them, 
re binding upon Christians.. And itis matter of joy, that after the hearts of the 
ithers have been so long and so lamentably forgetful of their dear offspring, they 
ave of late begun to be turned to them. Churches are inquiring, what duties 
re incumbent relative to the lambs of the flock? Many are waking up to the 
erformance of those duties; collecting their baptized children together; in- 
ructing them; teaching them their standing as to the visible kingdom of Christ ; 
minding them that they are subjects of the seal of this kingdom ; urging upon 
tem the necessity of regeneration by the Spirit of God; and unitedly praying 
rith and for them. 
General Associations have, of late, taken up this subject, and have formed» 
solves and recommendations to the churches. The Convention in Vermont 
ave, not long since, published some excellent resolves upon this subject. [See 
oplist for November, 1816, page 501.] Itis predicted in Holy Writ, that in 
le Jast days, just before the Millennium, ‘the hearts of the fathers ‘shall be 
ned to the children, and the hearts of the children to the fathers.” This, we 
ie reason to hope, is going speedily to be fulfilled. Then God will “ make 
ady a people prepared for the Lord.” 
But the duties recommended are far from being things calculated to confirva 
ptized children in the delusiye, fond idea,. that they are already converted, and 
psitfied, merely because subjects of external privileges. They are calculated te 
rest their attention to this subject; to alarm them with a sense of their being by 
iture destitute of these things ; and to impress them with a view of the infinite 
portance of their truly becoming subjects of ‘regeneration by the a Ghest ;* 
id ef the divine pardon, ‘ favor “and gracious goodness.’ 


‘ - 7 
LO el ae 
d - 


8. In Episcepal ordination, the bishop consecrates the pries 
in the established form of words, which begins thus : “ Receive 
the Holy Ghost, for the office and work of a priest in the eburch 
of God, now committed to thee by the imposition of ou: 
hands.”—I should have supposed that the hands of ordinatior 
are not “ suddenly” to be laid on any man, till some good evi: 
dence has already been obtained of his having received the Holy 
Ghost to fit him for the pastoral work. Had Timothy ordained 
his elders, without good evidence of this, it could not have beer 
an act of obedience to the divine injunction, ** Lay hands sud- 
denly on no man.” The inspired apostles would not impose 
their hands on the first deacons chosen, till they had received 
some good evidence that they were “ full of the Holy Ghost.” 
See Acts vi. 1—6. Yet these men were to be consecrated only 
to the business of managing the temporalities of the church. We 
have no account of even inspired apostles officially commanding 
any one to “ receive the Holy Ghost.” If a candidate for an 
Episcopal priest have not received the Holy Ghost, to fit him 
for his work, before he is presented for the imposition of hands ; 
it is worthy of serious consideration, whether this offic al for. 
mality will indeed communicate to him that holy heavenly 
Agent! iy nae 

For myself, I cannot receive a system, which contains such 
things as these. I much prefer to continue in the plain old pati 
of “the /aw and the testimony.” i ; 


4 


It is true, the great Head of the church, after his resurrectio 
and after he had officially received the communication of * 
power,” did indeed, once, breathe on the disciples, and said 
-“ Receive ye the Holy Ghost.” But it would seem as though 
man must first be indeed what one,in the dark ages fancied hims 
to be, Christ's vicar on earth, “ sitting in the temple of God, a 
showing himself that he is God,” before he could deem it suitabl 
(without evident commission thus to do) to imitate this exam 
of the King of Zion. 


4. Another of my difficulties with the Episcopal system 7 
this ; their creed gives too much power to vain man, who is bul 
of yesterday, and knows nothing. In their twentieth article ij 
is said,“ The church hath power to decree rites or ceremonies 
and authority in controversies of faith.” But is this the cas 
indeed ? Then the King of Heaven is not the only Lord of thé 
conscience. Ithas, beside Him, lords on earth. This pow 
has been exercised, to the cruel oppressicn of many of the peo 

-of God : asin the British Act of Uniformity. It was this pow 
which drave our fathers trom Britain, to seek an asylum in t 
western world, this wild hemisphere of savage beasts and m 


41 


| that they might here enjoy liberty of conscience, free from 


Episcopal cppression! Can American Christians then, here 
receive and cherish such a system?! Shall it here ever be per- 
mitted to follow, and extirpate the dissenting principles of our 
pious fathers, and plant itself on their ruins? Shall it thus 
_ shame the ashes of all the pious first settlers of New-England ? 
_ We wish all the subjects of this system, in the old lands, well— 


_ We rejoice to hear of their great exertions and success, together . 


_ with the pious Dissenters there, in promoting the Redeemer’s 
cause: But we really cannot wish to see the peculiarities of 


_ Episcopacy attempting to undermine the peaceable churches of 
_ the Dissenters in America. We should not be willing to have 


the principles, in the article above noted, become prevalent 
_ here; and to have all the peculiarities of their system here 
established and enforced. Many have charged the ministers 
of New-Ergland with a desire to institute a kind of hierarchy ; 
- er have an established religion. Fer myself, I am sure these 


_ Ministers never conceived such a desire. But should the Epis- 


_ copal sentiments here prevail, I could not in conscience exempt 


_ its propagators from such a charge. Their system is well 


known to be perfectly calculated for such an object. 


The above article modestly says, “ The church hath power 
to decree rites or ceremonies, and authority in controversies of 
faith.’ But the power is pot in the church, but in the bishop. 
The church has no power even to perform her own most evident 
duties, without leave obtained from him. It is in fact the bishop 
then, (or the college of bishops in this country where there is no 

_ King and Parliament to exercise it) that have this power. 
Should it be said, No, in this country, the “ Episcopal Con- 
vention’ (consisting of bishops, priests, and laity) have this 
power—I grant it: But the bishops have a negative power upon 
the other two branches in the Convention. So that virtually the 

_ power is vested in them. ‘And is it not an essential peculiarity 
of the Episcopal system, that all Ecclesiastical power is official- 
ly vested in the bishops ? Most certainly. Even if the King 
and Parliament exercise it, it is only as being a collection of the 


| Official successors of the apostles. All the inferior clergy and 


4 


4) 


the laity acknowledge the supreme power of the bishop, and 


promise obedience to him. 


Now, how can this part of the Episcopal code, that “the 
church hath power to decree rites or ceremonies, and authority 


_ in controversies of faith,” consist with the command of Christ, 


“ Call no man Father upon earth ; for one is your Father, who 
isin heaven.” “ And be not ye called Rabbi: For one is your . 
‘Master, even Christ ; and all ye are brethren.” : 

, r 


haan ie ie 


4S de 


» 7 


God alone is Lord of the conscience, both in in | 


faith, and in all the ordinances, the ** rites and ce¥emunies” 
his religion. If the contrary principle be ages 8 

soon, in some deeree at least, * make yoid tne law | Gd 
through their traditions.” They will be in the utmost’ danger 
of “ turning away their ears from the truth, and heing surnec 
unto fables.” We might, in such a case, expect to find as many, 
at least, of exceptionable things, as we think are indeed foun 
in the Episcopal system. Bio td f 


* 
; © eee 


$. Their admission of members to the holy sacrament of the 
supper, without exhibiting any distinguishing evidence of ahew 
heart, appears like a prefanation of this sacred institution. | Th : 
holy supper was evidently designed fir the children of Goal, aa 
such. “ Butunto the wicked God saith, What hast thou to do, 


te declare my statutes, or that thou shouldst take my cover nt | 
into thy mouth ?” “ And of the rest durst no man pee elf | 


onto the 


unto them. And believers were the more adde 


Lord.” ** The Lord added to them daily such as should be | 


saved.” The tenor of Scripture does clearly decide that thil- 
dren’s bread should be given to children only. al a 


An indiscriminate admission of members to ah te 
copal conjirmation, and to the table of the Lard, does in fac 
form a dreadful contrast with what I esteem the plain langu 

of the word of GoJ upon the subject ; and seems fully calculat 
to promote hypocrisy and i fidelity. ‘The atch atheist, Vultaire, 
would occasionally glory in his being a com municantat 
sacramental table. Where nothing is enjoined, as an ebsenti 
qualification for confirmation, and the Lord’s supper, but to be 
able to repeat the creed, the Lora’s prayer, the ten command- 
ments, and answers in a short catechism, or a few such things} 
it may be said to be equal to an indéscriminate admission. For 
the most irreligious characters may easily learn to repeat these 
lessons. And then officially to pronounce them “ regenerated 
by the Holy Ghost,” to declare that God “has i ech a to 
give them forgiveness of all their sins,”’ and by passin Hen of 
hands to “ certify them of God's favor and gracious go 

does appear like a flagrant instance of healing the wound of theit 
souls slightly, saying, Peace, peace, when there is n0 a * 


God said to the prophet, Jer. xv. 19. ‘ If thou take forth the 
precious from the vile, thou shalt he as my mouth: Tet them 
return unto thee ; but turn not thou unto them.” Many in 
those days did not take forth the precious from the vile. And 
God. condemned their conduct. ‘‘ ‘They have healed also the 
hurt of the daughter of my people slightly, saying, Peace, peace, 
when there is no peace.” Zwice God complains, in these very 


- 


i 


} ie 

words, i in Jeremiah. And in Tettict. he says, “ Because, even 
| becouse they have seduced my people, saying, Peace, and there 
‘Was no peace : And one built up a wall; and, lo, anvuther daubed 
ait with untempered mortar: Say to them. who daub it with 
untempered mortar, that it shall fall; and a stormy wind shall 
re ‘nd ite’ Such kind of conduct produced the ruin of (srael ; 
and has eternally destroyed millions cf poor souls !—The apos- 


i ge says, * Ye observe days, and months, ard times, and years 5 


~~ 


ceil afraid of you, lest I have bestowed upen you labor in 
vain.” Again he says, “ If ye be dead with Christ, from the 
rudiments of the world, why, as though living in the world, are 
¢€ subject to ordinunces after the commandments and doctrines 
ef men ¢ Which things have indeed a shew of wisdom, in will- 


aorship and humility, and neglecting the body, not in any 


honor, to the satisfying of the flesh.” Will-worshippers always 
« neglect the body” (che true church) of Christ. “ Having a 
form of Bodii iness, but denying the power thereof; from such 

urn away.”? Of the same kind of characters Christ says, 

* Thou ne a name to live, and art dead.” And again, “ In 
vain do they Worenip me; teaching for doctrine the command- 
ments of men.” It becomes all of us to see to it, that such 
Scriptures do nat describe our case. “ Fur what is the hope of 
‘the hype crite, though he have gained, when God taketh away 
his soul ? eel 


6. There is something in the manner, in which Episcopalians 
propagate the ir sentiments among us, which appears to me not 


“according tothe word of God. Instead of going where Christ 


is not presched, as cid Paul, are not this sort of people too often 
cing what Paul was inspired to declare he wou!d not do, invad- 
ing the circles of libors belonging to other men? Paul assures 
one church, that he was sent * to preach the Gospel in the 
regi us beyond them ; and not to boast in another man’s line of 
things made ready to his He ag “ For we stretch not our 
‘scives beyond our measure.” ‘* Yea, so have I strived to 
pr-ach the Gospel, not where Christ was named, lest 1 should 
bui'd upon another man’s foundation: Bat, as it is written, To 
a hom he was not spoken of, they shall see; and they that have 
nct heard, shall understand.” “ Not boasting of things without 
our measure, that is, of other men’s labors.”” These things Paul 
was inspired to write, for the regulation of Cbrist’s kingdom 


down two the end of the world. Paul considered, tliat if the 


Hoiy Ghost had made a man oversecr ina place, God would 
Never approve of others crowding upon him, to root out and 


’ destroy his vineyard. God is a God of order, and not of con- 


fusion. He doves not excite his children to counteract each 
other. If any wish to propagate the Gospel, the ficld is wide. 


BS 


> "Sy oe 
There are vast tracts of country, and multitudes of people, 
destitute of the stated Gospel ministry. Why should these be” 
neslected, while great. attention is paid to old towns and soci- © 
eties, already under a Gospel ministry of their ewn choosing 2° 
T. break in upon such communities, is eventually to promote 
irreligion ! It is to divide and scatter the sheep of Christ ; to” 
make sad the hearts of his ministers and people; to weaken and © 
discourage the true children of God; and to excite and 
strengthen opposition to the cause of vital piety! 9 9 
ite ge eye } 

In the view of exertions made to break up old regular Con.» 
gregati nal churches and societies, and to prevent the support 
of their ministers, who have been regularly called, and have 
been faithful and successful in their labors ; one is led to in- © 
quire, “ Is Christ divided?” Can the multiplying of altars 
against altars be a work of the Holy Ghost? Did Christ him- 
sc'f, when on earth, do any thing to encourage suc!) a practice 2 
D d he ever set up separate places of public worship? Did he 
B«-t invariably submit to the order of God already established 
am-ng the Jews, although the Jews had become very corrupt 
in doctrine and manners? Had not Christ as much occasion to 
institute new places of public worship, among the persecuting 
and hvp-critical Jews, as have Episcopalians among us ? But 
Christ would do nothing to encourage schisms or divjsiens 
among the visible people of God. And the light of eternity 
will show, that it is no small thing to promote such divisions ; . 
however many now make light of it; yea, glory in such a 
practice. 


The churches are forewarned, that ‘ offences will come,” 
But Christ denounces his woes against the people by whom they 
ccme. He warns of fatal divisions, and errors. ‘** Many will 
cry, Lo here, and lo there ; and, if it were possible, they would 
deceive even the very elect.” But the Prince of peace com- 
mands, ‘* Go ye not after, nor follow them.” Paul says, 
“ Mark those who cause divisions and offences, contrary to the 
doctrine ye have received, and avoid them: Forsuch serve not 
cur Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly ; and by good words - 
and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple.” ae 

We are beset with snares. Fatal dangers abound. Most. 
important then, are the divine directions, *“ Take heed that no 
man deceive you.” Re not led away with divers and strange 
doctrines.” ‘Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy | 
and vain deceit, after the rudiments of the world, and not after 
Christ.” ‘ Be ye steadfast and immoveable.” _¢ 


ae 


bins 
al 


“= 


45 


We act inher the omniscient eye of our Judge; and are 
hastening to his awful bar. There we shall find the truth of 
what God assures, that ** There is one Lord, one faith, one 
baptism ; one God and Father of all.” We shall there find 
there is but one heaven ; and one way that leads to it. And 
there we shall find, that the one way to heaven includes a new 
and gracious heart ; a charitable wa'k with the people of God ; 
and a faithful keeping of the “ unity of the Spirit in the bonds of 

eace.” A religion of nobility, a genteel religion, adapted to the 
feelings of the natural heart, will not appear to good advantage, 
19 au great burning day ! 


ash 


’ wst¢ ; bga punbud Hie: oe, 


lala Pee fe) an 


| ae - , 2 
Poe ht Chee BH Ob. aay git 
PRES? 5k ie 1 | Sagat pf { eh 
’ Pe aS chy 
baee s Brey ay Pe sabe) cod AO 
Bei. ‘ ASA deter ree E LY 
wert ds 
rae t 
13 
Peat Ex 
, t 7 ae 
7 f Yr 
i t 
‘ 
w! 24 
ey Thy yet 
‘ F A 
iy « i 
? - 
; te OR 
"7 d 
é 
‘ “y 
¥ 
fz 
: > 
oe . « 
4 
P 
x 
Sy 
i 
t N) 
b ' 
, y , 
" / 
pn 
; 
~ 
of i 
- be 4 S 
a 7 
4 
4 : g 
ae ; eae 
i ; F 
' 
4 
a 


Wi 
=) 
Q 
LJ 
kK 
< 
a 


v 
* 
o 
= 
° 
z 


Div.S. 262.12 SS46E 510005 


oze9gt0sz0G 


i 


Wan 


seuesgiy Ausi@Alun end 


